October 25, 2023
Well, we’re back for the fourth night. I’m not making any predictions about finishing, because I don’t want to be at fault if we go to Monday.
The Moderator opened the meeting and sought to recognize two people whose work to make sure Town Meeting happened was essential. From logistics to printing and scheduling, Christine Bongiorno and Julie Brazile made it happen. A heartfelt thank you from the members.
Rieko Tanaka played our National Anthem while we sang heartily, hopefully for the last time this fall.
Mr. Helmuth let the membership know that expressions of disdain are not inappropriate at this point in the meeting after the motion he was about to make. He moved that if the business of the meeting was not completed this evening, the meeting would adjourn until Monday, October 30. There was a general hiss. The motion was seconded and passed on a declared voice vote. (It was not entirely clear that the majority was in favor.)
The Moderator noted there was a search for the balcony microphone. He also noted handset 252 was missing. These were quickly resolved. He opened the test vote which was mathematical in nature: “1 Recommended Vote + 13 amendments + 1 Secondary Amendment = 32,768 Distinct Outcomes.” Vote 1 for true and 2 for false. The consensus was for true (85-32-65), but we were wrong. Given the way the voting works, the number of possible outcomes is significantly less.
The Moderator called for announcements or resolutions as defined in the Town Bylaws. TMM Tosti rose in memoriam. He has been active in town government for over 50 years. In that time, he has known many worthy public servants. The most prolific of those was Charlie Lyons. Mr. Lyons always moved the town forward while keeping the needs of the town and its residents in focus. He could deftly employ both the stick and the carrot as required to get people to work together and make progress. He was elected to the school committee at the age of 18. In 1980, he joined the then Board of Selectmen, right after Massachusetts approved Proposition 2 ½. He worked tirelessly with the Town Treasurer and town staff to make a financial plan. There was a definite cut in services, but he left the town on a firm footing. In 1990, he worked with Mr. Bilafer to pass the Town’s first tax override. He also worked on the first debt exclusion. In 2005, he worked with Charlie Foskett and the Finance Committee to set funding ratios between the town and schools to be used for multi-year tax override plans. What became known as the “Lyons Plan” is still being used by the Town today. The Meeting observed a minute of silence in memory and gratitude.
TMM Worden announced that after speaking at the previous session about the lack of any mention of affordable housing in Article 12, it was pointed out to him that it in fact was in the article. He quipped that it was possible that having been declared legally blind may have had something to do with it. He asked that his proposed amendment be withdrawn. The Moderator wasn’t sure if we could withdraw an amendment that was before the meeting. TMM Worden apologized for taking up the meeting’s time.
The Moderator asked for reports of committees. There were none offered, so Article 1 remained on the table.
The Moderator had some comments before we resumed the debate on Article 12. At the end of the previous session, he kept a record of the first 31 speakers on the live speakers list. He added those to the slide with the speakers who had registered to speak before the opening on the article. He noted that if all names on the speaker’s list are called, he will reopen the live queue. If a name appears in both queues, that person can pass on one and still maintain their position to speak from the other queue. As was established last time, the only motions to terminate debate which would be entertained would be from the live queue. The Moderator noted that after the previous session, TMM Worden had continued the conversation about whether the change to the unit capacity brought about by a proposed amendment should be subject to a call for scope. He noted that he used “much spicier language” in his email. TMM Worden argued that no amount of reduction that can still pass the statutory minimum can be declared in or out of scope. The Moderator thought that was very astute reasoning, and he now agreed with that opinion.
The Moderator asked the members to please yield their time if they have nothing to add. He also noted that we can always pass. If you want to agree with someone who has already spoken, you can show that support … by voting.
Mr. Helmuth introduced Senator Friedman, our state senator. Sen. Friedman thanked Town Meeting for having her. She had been invited to discuss how the MBTA Communities Act fits into larger regional goals. She started by thanking the ARB and the working group for all their efforts to bring this before the town and meeting. She noted that it is local volunteers who keep our communities going strong. She commended the Town Meeting members for the excellent and civil debate. She thanked the Moderator for setting a tone of seriousness, thoughtfulness, and good humor. As Senator and a resident of Arlington, she was acutely aware of the need for more housing. In the senate, she sits with 39 other members representing the whole state. We are not alone in this issue. There is real pressure from businesses who are concerned for their economic health. The state administration is very serious about addressing this issue, and therefore, they are also going to be very strict about what they will accept in a local plan. The young people on whom we will depend are moving away, because they cannot afford to stay. Our state population fell by 100K people over COVID. Young adults with new families leave as well. We are not able to attract new residents as they cannot afford to live here. Employers cannot staff their businesses. Statewide, there are 300-400 beds in behavioral health treatment centers that are offline due to a lack of staffing. Teachers, caregivers, and other essential workers are leaving our community and region as they cannot afford to stay. We cannot work our way out of this problem by paying them more. There just isn’t enough housing. Businesses are deciding not to come to our region due to the high cost of housing. This problem has been building for some time, and now it is here.
Sen. Friedman thanked the high school student who spoke about the difficulty trying to find housing for his grandmother. We are being squeezed at both ends. This isn’t just happening near Boston, this is happening everywhere in the state. We must do many things at once. We need sustainable development, transit that works, and municipal tools to make it work, and we must do all of it at the same time. These efforts are not mutually exclusive. Arlington can make a difference. We are not an isolated community unaffected by other communities and vice versa. She noted that in her district, towns are setting goals and taking this issue seriously. This is a meaningful framework for discussion. We will make a difference. (The Moderator reminded her of her time.) She continued that she cannot stress enough the impact on the business community. She urged support for the article. (applause)
The Moderator thanked the Senator, and noted that he had been informed that there is a “Motion to Withdraw” in Town Meeting Time. There was a motion to withdraw the Worden 1 Amendment. It was seconded and passed on a voice vote.
TMM Pyle, a land use attorney and past member of the Residential Study Group rose to strongly oppose the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment and support the Evans Amendment. The latter would create a shallower NMF district and still provide a capacity more than 800 units above the minimum. Referring to the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment, she noted that four stories will create permanent shade in the neighborhoods. Her precinct, Precinct 8 is very concerned about going to 4 stories. Her constituents had submitted many letters to the working group and the ARB. Three stories was a reasonable compromise. It was previously stated that four stories was chosen to prioritize elevators. According to the Director of Inspections, this will not be the case. The justification isn’t justified. It is not advisable to have a one-size-fits-all approach. The topography of Arlington Heights is different than in East Arlington. The Heights are hilly, and the East is flat. Topography should have been better considered when establishing the extent of the zones. The lines were drawn without thinking it through. Tall buildings on hills exaggerate the heights of buildings. The Evans Amendment works to make this better; Bagnall / Fleming does not. Please vote in favor of the Evans Amendment. The NMF overlay district should be kept close to Mass Ave. The ARB agreed that three floors was the right number. Please vote against the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment. If it passes, she will be voting against the main motion. If the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment is rejected, and the Evans Amendment is accepted, she will vote for the main motion. She encouraged the meeting to leave room for future mandates. The Town being cautious now will create opportunities for later. We should hold off and wait for real world data. This should be a cautious vote. Sen. Friedman was correct. We need to share the responsibility for addressing the housing issue.
A Point of Order was raised by TMM Friedman who noted that we hadn't taken Article 12 off the table this evening. The Moderator agreed that had not been done. TMM Friedman asked why we were not taking it from the table, and the Moderator replied that it was left off the table at the end of the previous session, so there was no action required to debate the article.
A TMM rose to introduce Mr Geoffrey Brahmer, a resident from Newman Way. He started with apology; he has lived in Arlington for 35 years, but the first time he attended Town Meeting was on Monday. He is glad to be here, and he would like to meet everyone. He said there was a gap between what was included in the notice and the potential impact on his neighborhood. He didn’t know what the issues were, and the notice that was sent didn’t mean anything. There need to be stronger lines of communication between reps, citizens, and the town. If residents are not informed, they get angry when things come up, and that can serve to divide neighbors. Arlington must stick together at all levels. He felt that Newman Way was at the epicenter of the MBTA Communities discussion. It is a little street, but it is one of the most diverse areas in town. CVS is just across Mass Ave, Whole Foods is around the corner, Stop & Shop is down the street. There are two banks, and the high school is right there, too. There is a lot going on. There is a large apartment building at the end of the street. The street is both racially and economically diverse. The new owners of the apartment building are raising rents on all the tenants. There was a demonstration earlier this year. The state representatives showed up. They listened to our concerns. What if all of town meeting had been there? What would the owners have thought? How can we support those who could be kicked out of town? Would landlord have acted differently? (The Moderator gave the requested two minute warning.) Mr. Brahmer said that the bottom-line question for his neighborhood is who are our neighbors? Nine of 12 buildings on their block are already multi-family (eight of which have only two units). Asking their street to do more is unfair. He recited a saying that "everything passes away but love." Please tell his neighbors that they are not alone. Town meeting members have each other when making this decision. All the historic figures of the town are with us in spirit tonight. He thanked the members for listening.
TMM Schlichtman, a member of the Arlington School Committee commented on the impact of MBTA Communities on our schools. He noted that the school committee's job is to welcome all children, to make them feel wanted, and help them to succeed. They don’t build walls; they offer a chair. He noted that when the town was first converting farms to neighborhoods and establishing commuter routes in the early 20th century, the population began a steep increase. The population almost doubled in 1920s. The population peaked in the 1970s, and has now fallen to around 46,000, 7,000 less than the peak. He noted that we will not see the explosive growth from the past. We are being asked to create capacity. Someone else will need to turn that capacity into actual housing. That could be a glacial process. He noted that we were only six miles from the statehouse. That would still be in the city in most places in the country. He provided examples from New York and Chicago. He noted that until 1975, Arlington kept up with its housing needs. However, Town Meeting passed laws to block housing development. The challenge to keep up with housing our population keeps getting harder. He said that multifamily housing exists in his district today. It creates more housing opportunities. Many of the proposed amendments will shut the door on other residents. These articles will serve to stop development again. He noted that Mr. Leone put forward his article because his family wants in. (The Moderator said this could not be taken as a representative sample.) TMM Schlichtman concluded that Article 12 is good for him and good for us.
The Moderator read a question from the submitted list. Will Town Meeting vote on the article before knowing whether the town's inclusionary housing bylaw will apply? What assurances do we have that the state will accept our bylaw? Ms. Ricker offered what has successfully been built to date as evidence. Recent projects on Broadway and Mass Ave were proposed and approved under inclusionary zoning. The town has approved many 40B’s providing 25% affordable units. The success of recent projects shows that the state ought to realize that our bylaw is working. TMM Carr-Jones had some follow-up questions, shockingly. She asked whether we have any ability to modify our proposal after acceptance. Ms. Zsembery said that once the plan has been passed and approved, if we want to make changed, the plan will need to come back to town meeting. TMM Carr-Jones asked if that would apply if we were changing the numbers downward. Ms. Ricker said we must notify the state of any changes. However, if we maintain compliance with the state regulations, we should be able to amend our local bylaw. If we changed the capacity so we were no longer compliant, the state could revoke out approval. TMM Carr-Jones noted that the map may appear to be balanced, but like us, it is looking a little thicker in the middle. Her precinct, Precinct 14 has more depth. She wondered if representation on the working group would have had an impact. Town Meeting is the place to make decisions. She referred back to a quote by the town poet laureate delivered at the Annual Town Meeting.
TMM Rosenthal had some questions. (It took some time for him to come forward, and there was some confusion about where he was.) He offered to start with different literature than had been heard here. He recants a story about a fellow wakes up one morning and finds construction equipment in his yard to tear house down. He quotes the opening from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the section regarding the search for the plans for the bypass to be build through his house. TMM Rosenthal noted that he and other members thought Douglas Adams was good at lampooning government behavior. TMM Rosenthal had received correspondence outraged residents of the town. They hadn’t heard anything about what was going on until this week. The process by which proposals were developed does not well serve the residents. The Moderator interjected to ask if he had any points to raise beyond the notification. TMM Rosenthal noted that was it.
The Moderator read a question submitted by TMM Thornton, asking what the financial impact of new development would be, positive or negative? Mr. Feeney said he had received a financial model from some residents, but he doesn’t have other competing models to base a prediction. TMM Thornton asked if the Manager would support a financial analysis prepared by an outside firm. Mr. Feeney said that could be considered, but it would be based on "what if" scenarios. The Moderator noted that this was not a negotiation. TMM Thornton thought the analysis was badly needed.
TMM Pretzer lives adjacent to the proposed overlay area. This will be a big change, and that could be intimidating. However, doing nothing won’t keep things the same as they are today. TMM Pretzer noted that there would be no new housing, fewer seniors, more McMansions instead of apartments, and renters will have to move even farther out. Among residents, housing costs and not being able to stay in town are the biggest concerns. Rent will keep rising. The working group was thanked for their efforts. Renters were included discussion. They did a great job in boiling down all the feedback. We should build housing to invite new neighbors. If affordable housing is to be created by inclusionary zoning, the town needs to allow larger buildings. TMM Pretzer encouraged a no vote on the Evans Amendment as it would reduce the unit capacity. A half measure means delay and more people leaving town.
TMM Fiore asked how much solid waste would be sent to landfills during the demolition of the existing buildings when new buildings are constructed? Massachusetts landfill capacity will be depleted by 2030. He read that in the Advocate-Star. (a slight chuckle from the members, acknowledging how far the paper has fallen) Massachusetts has a solid waste problem. Our representatives need to do more (scope) The Moderator interjected to encourage the speaker to take this up in a different chamber, the state house. TMM Fiore objected to the way questions of scope were being raised. The Moderator didn't want to have the speaker dictate how he should handle calls for scope. TMM Fiore encouraged support for the Babiarz Amendment and reduce waste sent to landfills. That gives the state more time to address the issue.
TMM Wagner raised a Point of Order. He noted that the submitted questions are pre-screened by the Moderator, and the previous speaker spoke to his question, how could that be out of scope? The Moderator interjected that the initial question was in scope, but the followup question was out of scope. Please stop interrupting and stop wasting time.
TMM Foskett spoke about the costs to the town. New housing has decades long impacts. How should we compare revenues and expenses under this article? Taxes are assessed by land, and expenses are accrued per capita. We need to think about households. Everyone pays taxes, owners and renters alike. He said there had been much financial analysis, and the general trend is expenses increase as population grows, but debts rise faster, increasing the fiscal deficit. There is definitive academic support for this. Mass municipal data shows a correlation between population and expenses. The increment is largest in the schools. A recent analysis by he and other Finance Committee members concluded that a rising number of units will lead to even larger of debts. Estimates, data, hypotheticals, [refer to recording to follow his argument - I cannot type tat fast] TMM Foskett encouraged a vote for main motion and against the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment.
TMM LaCourt asked if we can predict the effect of Article 12 on town finances. Mr. Feeney replied that he cannot predict the future. TMM LaCourt asked how often do we budget by population rather than by the services the town provides? Mr. Feeney said the only time we consider population is the number of pupils. TMM LaCourt and Mr. Feeney had some quick back-and-forth questions: Does more people mean more waste - yes; more sand and salt - no. (The Moderator encouraged the Manager to give TMM LaCourt the floor.) She continued that it is hard to predict the future. The Town prepares five year financial plans that evolve every year. She said TMM Foskett predicted a couple hundred thousand dollar increase in the budget. Town Meeting voted to do that last week without a population change. The complexity of the variables and amount of data needed is much harder than just looking at population growth. Sometimes we get lucky; sometimes we don’t. We are taking a risk, so what is the reward? TMM LaCourt thought the risk was low versus the reward. Passing this article might mitigate the rising housing costs and help alleviate climate change. Increasing density and efficiency are helping us buy a future for our children. We need a variety of housing. This helps protect the entire region. People move to other communities, displacing those people, who displace other people. What make this town what it is, is the people. Her kids went to school with kids from a wide variety of backgrounds. Rising housing costs made a bubble where the variety of backgrounds is no longer possible. We need to do more to maintain our economic diversity. She encouraged a vote against the Bagnall / Fleming Amendment if you think it will tank main motion.
TMM Holland had an observation and cautionary tail. He noted that a while back, we received a briefing about the MBTA Communities Act that said two-family houses are not multifamily. He experienced some cognitive dissonance. They are still not multifamily per the act. His conclusion was that whoever is in charge of maps needs to take care because of our two-family neighborhoods. The HCA used to convert two-family houses to condos, trading sweat equity for reduced housing costs. Prices were depressed back then. The cautionary tale involved another Arlington, the on in Virginia. His grandmother lived on Columbia Pike in the 1950s. The adults talked about apartment buildings going up along the Pike, big and beautiful with swimming pools. Grownups said the owners of single-family homes were being approached with great offers. Many took them. The whole thing was over in two years. Boom to bust. He still has cousins living there. He take-away was that there is nop prediction for how long it will take to build out the new housing. It could be slow or quick. He encouraged us to be aware, because it could happen quickly.
TMM Wiener rose while the Moderator read her submitted question asking whether the ARB could be afforded time to comment on the proposed amendments. He responded "yes ... just kidding. He did recognize Ms. Zsembery. The ARB did not create a report, as they had only discussed them a couple of days before, but she had her notes from that meeting. Regarding the Evans Amendment, she noted that the submitted map was the result of a nine month engagement process. It tried to equitably distribute future students to all public schools. She also noted that going from 2.5 stories to 3 is not a large leap. On the Babiarz Amendment, she thought it was not allowed under the statute. Worden 1 had already been withdrawn. Worden 2 would reduce parcels to an undevelopable size. The Anderson Amendment for optional commercial development on the second floor was supported, although the ARB was concerned about a fixed percentage. The Loreti 1seeking 15% open space on the ground was already already well included in the setbacks. She thought the footnote in table is stronger. On Loreti 2, she noted that a 13 ft floor height was is industry standard and would support commercial on other floors. On Loreti 3, she said it was important to require that a project be LEED Certified, because that provides the town the teeth to get project certified. Regarding concerns about certification falling short, she noted that ISD and DPCD would be able to identify checkpoints along the development path to make sure a project was on track. The occupancy permit could be pulled for noncompliance. On Wagner 1, the ARB recommendation was due to so many shallow lots along Mass Ave. This amendment would happen frequently, reducing the MBMF district. Regarding Wagner 2, the proposed bonuses support desires expressed by the community: affordable housing, commercial space, and sustainability. It was now 9:31, so the Moderator declared our break
---------------------
Back from break, TMM Revilak passed. TMM Klein passed. TMM Bergman said about the criticism that many of the current development rules are fifty years old. We could be making the same mistake now. We should build in opportunities to stop and rethink the process, the impacts on services, the impact on taxes, and the impact on the quality of life. She was in favor of the amendments supported by ARFRR. She thought the plan needed to prioritize affordable housing. Our local inclusionary zoning bylaw is better than what the state would impose. Lincoln tried to have their inclusionary zoning bylaw approved, and they were denied. There are no guarantees. She cited several articles saying market rate housing doesn’t help alleviate the need for affordable housing. The private housing market isn’t getting it done. She suggested we wait for an affordable housing overlay which would support our own inclusionary zoning bylaw. She continued that we needed to include space for cars. We cannot expect everyone to ride a bike or take the T. Whatever we approve should make the least disruptive changes. We can then carefully amend the bylaw later. She urged support for the amendments.
TMM Pennarun passed. The Moderator invited TMM Gitelson to come forward. He then asked if there were any objections to his allowing a speaker from Monday's live list to terminate debate from queue? There was a resounding "NO", so he said he would accept them. He then thought we might have meant we objected, so he considered going back on his decision, and said he wouldn't do it after all. TMM Gitelson moved to terminate debate, which was accepted with applause. The Moderator urged us to hold on, but then agreed that he had said he would allow it. The motion was seconded and easily passed on a voice vote.
This brought us to the votes on the amendments.
The Wagner Amendment 1 was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 58-167, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Babiarz Amendment was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 49-174, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Worden Amendment 1 was previously withdrawn.
The Loreti Amendment 1 was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 58-164, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Bagnall / Fleming Amendment was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 57-162, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Anderson Secondary Amendment was explained by the Moderator as being the most complicated vote: an amendment to an amendment to the main motion. The vote passed 201-17, and the amendment was adopted
The Anderson Amendment as amended was explained by the Moderator. The vote passed 203-22, and the amended amendment was adopted.
The Lane Amendment was explained by the Moderator. TMM Jamieson raised a Point of Order asking the Moderator to scroll through the entire proposed amendment. The vote failed 59-159, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Loreti Amendment 2 was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 63-160, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Worden Amendment 2 was explained by the Moderator. TMM Babiarz raised a Point of Order to offer what she hoped would be received as a friendly amendment. The Moderator said that was not a proper point of order, and debate was already closed. It would not be considered. The vote failed 42-176, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Loreti Amendment 3 was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 59-163, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Wagner Amendment 2 was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 53-164, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Evans Amendment was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 76-144, and the amendment was not adopted.
The Leone Amendment was explained by the Moderator. The vote failed 99-106, and the amendment was not adopted.
What was now before the Meeting was the Main Motion as amended by Anderson Amendment as Amended by the Anderson Secondary Amendment. The Moderator explained the full scope of the article. A majority vote was required. The vote passed 189-35, and the article was adopted.
Now that Article 12 was completed, Ms. Deshler rose and moved that Article 1 be taken from the table. This was seconded and passed on a voice vote. She then moved to dissolve the Special Town Meeting. That motion was also seconded and passed on a voice vote.
The Special Town Meeting was declared dissolved.
