Tanya's profile - coUrbanize

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 6 months ago}

Tree preservation: May 9th draft, http://concordma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14035/Draft-Plan-Section-4-CM-Track-Edits-5-9-18 section 4.4, Goal 5- pp 71-72 says "consider ways to encourage development to include more street trees..." Street trees- ie public shade trees- already have protection under State laws. It is the private property trees that need more encouragement for preservation. Similarly, section 4.6, on page 102, Goal 1, new item 4 "Provide incentives and support for the creation and protection of natural habitat on private lands" needs to include to consider an expanded Tree Preservation Bylaw to protect trees on private property through regulations and incentives.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 6 months ago}

Economic vitality and FBB related: *Members of the public* should be included in the leasing team described in the May 9th draft version, section 4.2, goal 1, step 3 (page 23). Current version: "A leasing team would be established with property owners, commercial brokers, businesses, and Town economic development efforts to work together to market and lease-up vacant space." The public in Concord subsidizes businesses through equal tax rates. Residents deserve a say in what businesses they want in town without requiring additional incentives for commercial property owners.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 7 months ago}

About growth: Co-chair Gary K. said at CLRPC meeting on April 27 that the committee would be "agnostic" about growth. It makes sense that one can not know in advance whether or not there will be growth, and furthermore, that some is likely to happen. However, the value statement starts out stating that Concord "seeks sustainable growth" -- which is not an agnostic (or neutral) statement.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 7 months ago}

About Formula Business Bylaw: CLRPC co-chairs said at LWV meeting on 5/4 that they would leave it to the Planning Board to decide whether it was appropriate, just as the PB had one in place for West Concord. However, it was not the Planning Board which initiated the WC effort a few years back. It was the WC Advisory Comm - ie it took citizen action. It is inconsistent with the envision project's authentic participation tenet not to heed the many voices asking for a Formula Business Bylaw just because some commercial property owners (not surprisingly) oppose it. The idea should at least be articulated in the Plan. As for a proposal by John B. of the CLRPC that an incentive plan may be more effective whereby property owners get reduced taxes if they rent to a non formula business: Businesses in Concord are already subsidized by the community by paying the same tax rate as residential. The proposal would mean commercial properties would pay even less tax than residential! We have zoning bylaws about many other things, such as an ordinary resident not being able to run a business - say a cafe - out of their home. Why not consider other zoning? FBBylaw has not been my primary area of interest, but I was disappointed by the weak and unconvincing arguments given by the co-chairs in explaining why the matter is not part of the final plan.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 7 months ago}

If it's not too late, the term "street trees" in 4.6 introduction, page 13, middle paragraph, should be "neighborhood trees". The character of neighborhoods in Concord relies on trees on private property as well as public street trees. Relatedly: A future revisiting of the Tree Preservation Bylaw to improve it to include "significant trees" and more detailed ecological considerations should be considered. This has been mentioned on this site, in public discussions of the Tree Preservation Bylaw by various residents (including pre-Town Meeting 2017), and also some members of the Planning Board.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 7 months ago}

Sustainability and climate resiliency matters received strong support during Town Meeting, and the committee is deliberating on these aspects with more focus, and also is open to public input in all areas. Please try to attend the Public Hearing on April 25, 7 pm, and also peruse the documents on the CLRPC's webpage, including previous and current meeting documents. http://concordma.gov/1067/Comprehensive-Long-Range-Plan-Comm

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Thank you, CLRPC, for agreeing to post the above requested documents. Much appreciated.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Relatedly: About the "Values Statement" at the end of Section 1 : "The Town of Concord seeks sustainable growth and diversity that protects its historic and natural resources, while preserving its values, qualities and culture." The primary goal should not be "growth" - even when "sustainable." The bulk of public comment has not been about growth, but about preserving what is good, plus "affordable housing" - not "growth." Push for growth has likely come from closed meetings with business and development interests as mentioned above - ie a handful of individuals - not "Town of Concord."

Values Statement should instead read: "The Town of Concord seeks to preserve and protect its historic and natural resources, qualities, and culture, while inviting diversity and encouraging sustainable growth as needed."

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

In the introduction, a statement about authentic participation says: "Not replacing existing processes of participatory democracy in Concord (Town Meeting, public hearings), but supplementing these to draw broader participation and input." This reveals a misunderstanding about democratic process. Replacing democratic process in the Long Range Plan was never an option in the first place. Nor is the matter Concord specific or limited to Town Meeting and Public Hearings. Transparency rules and guidelines about democratic process are State mandated. The "authentic participation" should have taken place according to proper public process, certainly involving everyone, but inviting parties to state their views openly and publicly, in person or by proxy. Instead, the democratic process was thwarted by extending special privileged private input to for-profit parties, using public funds. Relatedly, persistently calling the CLRPC the "Envision Concord Committee" reduces the solemn and central public function of the committee to that of a subordinate and is (unintentionally) pejorative. Similar to calling a Ms. Y. "Mrs. X." when Ms. Y. is the leader of a joint project. The project is Envision Concord. The Committee is the Comprehensive Long Range Plan Committee. The sentence "Not replacing ...." exposes lack of understanding at best and an over-protesting denial of correct process evasion at worst. The Long Range Plan has been a public private partnership, except in this case the public has helped finance private interests - rather than the other way around. Very disappointing that CLRPC and its chairs continue to play along.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Please post the initial two drafts prepared by CLRPC co-chairs, sent to the consultant around February 19, and later shortly after Feb 24-25, so that the public (and CLRPC itself) knows what the committee's own contribution was to the final draft plan - as distinct from revisions by consultant (and also additions by planning division.) These two drafts were prepared by the co-chairs on behalf of the committee and should be publicly posted documents.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Please attend Town Meeting April 9, 10, 11, and support Article 20, Independence of the Press, and Article 23, Community Resilience Goals. Article 20 asks the Town Manager and the SelectBoard to allow CCTV to remain an independent entity rather than to be taken over by the Town Administration. Please set aside both April 9th, Monday and April 10th, Tuesday as possible dates for this article to come up. Keeping our media venues free of government influence is important for transparent government broadcasting and for guaranteed unhindered access for dissenting opinions. Article 23, Community Resilience Goals, is also essential, since natural preservation has taken a back seat from the start in the Town's ongoing Long Range Plan process.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Hi Jessica. *Nowhere* did I say or have said that "developers are the bad guys." Nor did I say they should not make money on their investment. The subject is
questionable statements in *Mr. Boynton's specific letter* that a *seller* will be necessarily hurt by limits on new housing sizes.

As you mention, depending on market, sometimes it is the developers who will pay higher, other times "families", - and developers will pay what the seller wants (more or less.)

It is fine for a developer (or realtor) to complain that if new housing size is limited that will limit their own immediate profits. They have a right to openly state their complaint and look out for their profits. *However, it is not fine for someone to then claim (presumably to garner community support by scaring sellers) that the seller will hurt, when that will not necessarily be the case. *

Thank you for disclosing that you are a realtor, and I do not disagree with what you are saying and have no problem with truthful discourse. However, please do not misrepresent my comments. The discussion is not about developer's rights to maximize profits. It is about potentially misleading statements in a particular letter, by a CLRPC member, that a *seller* will necessarily hurt by limiting sizes on new development. As you point out, people will pay market value no matter what, and therefore a seller is not likely to be hurt - so no need to scare the community.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Jessica, all, this is a great discussion. I just want to reiterate, though, that my initial comment was that Mr. Boynton's implication that only developers will pay the best price, and that the larger the allowed new house the better, is not correct. Otherwise, yes, the seller will of course often (though not necessarily always) sell to the highest bidder - and of course energy efficient measures are desirable in older OR newer homes. The point, though, is that the seller won't necessarily get more money from a developer if we have fewer rules about new house sizes. She/he will still get whatever (more or less) the property is worth. Nor will a developer pay more than someone who wants to use the existing building. So the letter's claims and implications are not necessarily so. The discussion is not whether any new houses should be built. It is whether limiting the size of new construction will in fact hurt the seller, as the letter implies- and it probably will not.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

It is not necessarily true that the original seller wins either. There is no need to assume that an average family or starter couple (or even a middle aged empty nester couple) would not pay good market value for a modest ranch in a treesy setting with other local advantages, - whereas a developer would try to bargain the price down since the existing building would be of no value to them.

Supported a comment by Lydia Lodynsky on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Lydia Lodynsky
we should remember to include "wildlife preservation" along with the trees. Perhaps greater emphasis can be placed on "preserving habitat"

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Thank you for this comment Lydia. A similar perspective I have is that people usually consider ownership of trees (and their fates) an "individual right." What is often not recognized is that many peoples right to enjoy trees and benefits is ALSO an individual right.. As such, I find it a misnomer to pit "individual rights" against "communal benefits". It really is individual rights vs individual rights. I know this is a slightly different nuance than your recognition of trees as their own living beings, but process-wise, I think it is relevant to the discourse on matters like this.

Supported a comment by Lydia Lodynsky on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 8 months ago}

Lydia Lodynsky
if only more of us would consider trees and land as not something that is owned, but rather, something that is leased while we are on this earth, on that piece of property. Trees often outlive generations. They don't belong to us.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 9 months ago}

In this case, there has been a mix of transparency and opacity, which is in some ways more complicated, because there is the "illusion" of transparency (which really is a form of additional opacity.) It is, I believe, even more important, that the public becomes engaged and insists on the committee's own work to receive the visibility and primacy it deserves. I respect the work Committee members have done. I just do not have complete trust in the larger project because of too many behind the scenes elements.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 9 months ago}

Hi Lydia, the most recent drafts, and many other documents are viewable on the CLRPC webpage, http://concordma.gov/1067/Comprehensive-Long-Range-Plan-Comm I encourage everyone to look at them. There are some good things, too..
However, I have an objection that the distinct drafts that the committee chairs prepared (ie what the committee's own findings are, without superimposed additions from consultant and staff opinions in the final version) were communicated outside of public meetings, via emails. The committee itself has done a lot of good work, and we should be able to see that, and compare it to what has been added from Town consultant and staff. I have requested that the committee post their own drafts and edits, and am hoping they will oblige..

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 9 months ago}

The Long Range Plan Committee should please post soon the plan drafts that its own chairs provided towards the final document, as well as committee member edits to these. This circulation of these materials among committee members was carried out outside of open meetings (per chairs' described plan on Feb.23), via using consultant as an intermediary, which is very likely still against the Open Meeting Law. It is also simply ethical for the public to know what the CLRPC itself recommended, given all the private interviews and meetings consultant had with select developers and business interests. Authenticity is one thing, secrecy and opacity is another. The Attorney General recently found that the CLRPC had violated the Open Meeting Law during survey preparation. http://www.oml.ago.state.ma.us It is also ironic that this webpage service, coUrbanize, boasts (rightly) in its publicity that contributors have accountability because we sign in with our names and emails, whereas the consultant boasted (Sept 8, 2017) the utmost privacy they provide to the developers they interviewed.

Supported a comment by Judy Hill on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 9 months ago}

Judy Hill
Zoning regulations and setbacks from rivers and ponds are there for a purpose. It's always disappointing to see builders applying for exceptions, particularly for their projects near rivers and within buffer zones. Then to see those exceptions allowed by Planning and/or ZBA.

Supported a comment by India Hoeschen-Stein on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 9 months ago}

India Hoeschen-Stein
Yes, all the affordable ranch houses are being replaced by almost identical looking mini-McMansions that are 3-6 times the square footage. As a result affordable housing is disappearing and our carbon footprint & energy demand/consumption are skyrocketing. My neighborhood (Elsinore Street) has completely transformed in the last 3 years and soon there will be no ranch houses left.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 10 months ago}

Is the March 14th public event a "Public Hearing" of the CLRP Committee or a presentation by the Town's Consultant Civic Moxie of their recommendations so far? A clarification would be appreciated. Last night at the SelectBoard meeting, Town Manager Chris Whelan said the second meeting of CivicMoxie with Town Management Team (planapalooza) had taken place, and that the discussion was about how to incorporate sustainability into the long range plan, and that the consultant would present a draft on March 14th. Is that also going to be a Public Hearing of the Committee itself? Thank you.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 10 months ago}

When we think of change happening "whether we want it or not," we should also remember that as chief consultant Ms. Silberberg mentioned during a CLRPC meeting, some of this change will be from outside sources, outside of Concord's control. This is precisely why we should avoid predicting what these outside effects might be and not presume in advance any *particular* kind of change. As such, all envisioned implementation proposals that are of a predictive nature should be accompanied by the qualification "if it becomes necessary." This applies to zoning change suggestions, for example, and to other issues as well - though not, for example, to improved intra-town transportation, which is a *current* popular item. Meanwhile, I appreciate that Mr. Kleiman included tree preservation as a desirable condition in land use policy recommendations. Thank you.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 10 months ago}

The housing/zoning change recommendation I refer to above, and others, can be found on page 12 of the document:
http://concordma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/11923

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 10 months ago}

Wildlife preservation has not been specifically covered by the committee so far. A similar view is in Mr. Richard Forman's letter posted by the Town earlier on this site, on November 22. https://res.cloudinary.com/courbanize-production/image/upload/v1/information_plans/etk3arqhxtp8j8ulso35
Mr. Forman states, in his third paragraph:
. "Protect land so that key native species can readily move across town. The rich protected lands of Concord are fundamental resources providing enviable water, wildlife, and walking. A few large areas such as Estabrook Woods support an array of forest-interior species scarce elsewhere, and thus of high importance. But, as a Google Earth image makes clear, Concord’s land is fragmented by buildings,
roads and other features. To survive or thrive, animals “need to” move. Think of amphibians/reptiles moving along soil. Establishing, and protecting, spatial patterns across our town that provide connectivity for wildlife in different directions is critical to maintaining valuable biodiversity in the face of both climate change and ongoing urbanization."

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 10 months ago}

Changing zoning to allow for more density, especially in 0.5 acre lots, as CivicMoxie is recommending in its opportunity scenarios, is not a good idea. The opposition to mansions being built on small lots is because this results in tree loss and change of "town character.". Increasing density in 0.5 acre lots will result in even more tree loss. Moreover, in the survey, Question 15, the two options which were about increasing density received the lowest two rankings - despite the fact that one was obligated to rank every option, ie without being able to leave these blank. The public, as the survey shows, prefers to create affordable housing through existing structures and added in-law units, not zoning changes. People are urged to frequently check documents on the CLRPC's webpage at concordma.gov

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 11 months ago}

An analysis of the survey the Tree Preservation Subcommittee conducted in 2016:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/concord/conversations/messages/53795

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 11 months ago}

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/concord/conversations/messages/53795
Here's an analysis of what trees mean to the people of Concord, included in my report on the Tree Preservation Subcommittee survey of 2016. Despite our modest means of distribution, 327 people responded.:The survey analysis is part of the message above to the concord yahoogroups list.

Supported a comment by mark gailus on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 11 months ago}

mark gailus
Let the Long Range Plan specifically include a goal of preserving nature in residential areas. The benefits of nature need not be restricted to "conservation lands." Neighborhoods with mature tree canopies and mini-meadows provide wildlife corridors and habitat, benefits to human health, and nature instruction to those who pay attention. They multiply the benefits of adjacent conservation lands. Make it a goal to support pollinator and bird friendly native plantings, and to reduce general pesticide use and avoid lawn care methods that require gasoline powered equipment, fungicides, and chemical fertilizers. All great for "Town Character" and "Sustainability."

Commented on Envision Concord ^{5 years, 11 months ago}

Preserving Neighborhood Trees: I have been looking over the current drafts for vision for concord, opportunities, and the element of preserving trees and nature "within neighborhoods" is missing. The physical and mental health value of having trees within one's neighborhood should not be underestimated. Natural conservation should not be limited only to designated parcels of interest.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

BTW, repeating myself: There is no "Envision Concord Committee." There may be an "Envision Concord" project. But the consultant is not part of the Committee, which is the CLRPC. Please stop using this misleading language, which gives people the impression that the consultant and the Committee carry equal weight in this process. They don't.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

I support Mr. Forman's comments and encourage everyone to click on the "letter" link above and read the actual letter. I hope Mr. Forman will also know that his comments were supported - since an automatic notification might not go to him from coUrbanize, as he is not the one who posted his letter here,

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

Thank you for this perspective, Nick.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

The Tree-Preservation-Subcommittee was duly dissolved after Town-Meeting 2017. There have been delays in implementing the Tree Bylaw. It was sent late to the AG, in July. Was on town website in October. Rules and regulations are still being worked out. A modest bylaw affecting only periphery and only major construction. Meanwhile, unnecessary tree loss is continuing, as simply to allow for a slightly bigger lawn in new construction-not because a house is to be built on that location. I also agree that we need to look into a more comprehensive discussion/bylaw for preserving "significant trees" - like 100yr old oak trees. I don't usually write sentimentally in town matters. But yesterday, such a tree (100 yr. oak) was taken down across the street from us, and it literally sounded like a "cry" as it fell..A number of peripheral tall pine trees were taken down, too, just to expand the future lawn. One has to- and does- respect the existing rights of land owners, including developers. But this is also why our town staff has to act with more diligence in making sure our bylaws are implemented in a timely manner. There is often a lack of communication among town departments as well. So, yes, we need to look into tree preservation in more detail and with more thorough understanding of ecology than the Tree Subcommittee was able to do.- and deal with TM bylaws in a more conscientious manner.

Supported a comment by Joe Stein on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

Joe Stein
Trees provide a number of important ecological and environmental services, as well as improve property values and "town character". But trees are experiencing increasing stress from road salt, infestations (pine trees are dying all over town), and climate (ie,tar spot due to prolonged wet conditions). I propose the Town consider creating a formal Tree Committee modeled after other successful committees within MA. The committee may be charged with promoting shade tree plantings, soliciting ideas for tree replacement, managing tree dedications, etc. Towns such as Lexington, MA have an active Tree Committee and dedicated town website. Concord should consider the same (I would happily serve as volunteer).

Supported a comment by Lori Pazaris on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

Lori Pazaris
Excellent suggestion! Concord does have a Tree Preservation Sub Committee that sponsored our Tree preservation bylaw, passed at last year’s town meeting. The by-law is a start and can / should be expanded.

Many folks are not aware that trees are connected to our water cycles, can protect against drought, and keep our land hydrated and aquifers full. We need to connect the dots by forming a climate resilience committee or task force to review and make recommendations on best land and water management practices (including trees and other vegetation, creation of healthy soil that can provide quick water infiltration, protecting water supplies, etc).

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

Hi Paul. It is not just a matter of semantics - though semantics can sometimes be of importance. Mixed use, to me, is a concept that may apply to a given facility itself. I was not really commenting on your ideas themselves. Whether we need another indoor athletic facility and/or an outdoor athletic facility and/or a state of the art recycling center are all valid suggestions that merit their own discussions. I was responding more to a way of rephrasing and re-presenting your suggestion by (presumably) the consultant in this case.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

Bill has requested free parking for a long time to help his and others' businesses, and has met with opposition, including from some town officials, that free parking has nothing to do with his concerns - that in fact many businesses prefer limited parking so that there is customer turnover. I have been neutral about this discussion, still am. I think there are pros and cons either way. But I am surprised to find out today in the Concord Journal (http://concord.wickedlocal.com/news/20171114/move-to-boost-business-two-days-of-free-parking-in-concord-center) that the Selectboard has approved free parking for two days after Thanksgiving, precisely "to help businesses" - which makes me wonder about the consistency of the town officials' arguments. Does it perhaps depend on who brings up the issue? If so, should it?

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

There is no particular "mix of uses" in the idea expressed above. It's about a recreational facility, with or without an adjacent recycling center. - ie two separate facilities- which may or may not be adjacent.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

thank you for looking into this

Supported a comment by Matthew Johnson on Envision Concord ^{6 years ago}

Matthew Johnson
The "Existing Conditions" presentation that Civic Moxie made at the workshop claimed that Concord's population had grown by 13.4% since 2000. That didn't sound right to me, so I got the town census data from the Town Clerk. It shows Concord's population of 15,537 in 2000 growing to 15,987 in 2016. That's 450 people, or 2.9%, over 16 years. I think it's very important to correct this error, which could mislead readers into thinking that Concord's a fast-growing town, when its population has actually been very stable for the past few decades. (In 1990, the population was 15,424.) I'm not certain, but my guess is that the error came from using US Census data, which counts the MCI Concord prison population. That may have increased substantially as a result of the prison changing from an intake facility to a residential site.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

I have asked coUrbanize to send you my email address, in case you wish to contact me about anything, Melissa.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Also: the NRC, CSEC, and the Agricultural Committee are official town committees, and as such offered a requested report, along with other boards and committees, including the Planning Board, Housing Authority, and the CHDC. Nobody assumed the last three speak for development interests. Lastly, when replying to comments as "Town of Concord", I ask that the Planning Division or Consultant do not implicitly meld their unique functions with that of the committee's (CLRPC) by using a "we" (as in "we hope.."), with regards to specifics that are under the committee's jurisdiction. It is the CLRPC which is ultimately responsible for non discriminatory treatment of all parties, by making *all* services equally available to *all*. If some conservation interests were alerted to inherent biases going on, much of it was due to the time, effort, and footwork - and willingness to be vulnerable - of a handful of citizens. That in itself has been an unfair burden to bear - especially when for profit interests get cushy treatment from publicly funded consultant because "otherwise they will not talk."

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

It is still discriminatory for the committee to offer focus groups to some interests/individuals and deny them to others. To invite select businesses and developers, or town staff, to private concern-sharing gatherings, while "hoping" that some conservation interests will show up at an open conservation coffee to answer leading questions. One is baffled: Why is there such persistent ongoing resistance to offer a focus group to conservation interests? What has the committee got to lose? Who has what to lose?

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Yes I just noticed. Thank you.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

The committee's and the consultant's continued resistance and refusal to hold focus group meetings with conservation interests is a shameful hindrance of equal access to all parties. The committee has extended private focus group meetings to select businesses and developers because "they will not otherwise speak in public" and "the committee wants to know what they think." How does the committee know that some conservation interests do not have their own thoughts they might not share in public - which may be of use in the process? Why are they essentially "forced" to either speak in public or be quiet? Why are they essentially "forced" to spend extraordinary amount of time and energy attending meetings and writing letters, while for profit interests receive red carpet treatment? This is outright discrimination in public process. The public - not some "business partnership"- is paying for the consultant. Are the committee and the consultant afraid of what might be said in a closed focus group of people interested in natural preservation and protection? Ideally, there should be no closed focus groups in this process - but if they will be held anyway, they should be made available to everyone.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Where can one find ALL the data from the envision survey? Your update from the October 21 public event presentation shows the answers to only 'some' of the questions. Please post the answers to ALL the questions.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

and we need at least one more shelter - not just for the elderly, but for unexpected emergencies in this era of severe climate activity and political unrest

Supported a comment by Brian Foulds on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Brian Foulds
The Harvey Wheeler Center is a shelter for the elderly when a heat emergency or storm hits Concord. Utility scale batteries should be installed there to ensure the building has power when a during one of these unfortunate events. These batteries can also be used to lower the cost of electricity when operated by Concord Light.

Supported a comment by Mark Hanson on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Mark Hanson
Water gardens used as a way to take runoff from impervious pavement can be turned into effective pollinator habitat and forage areas. Audubon's Broad Meadow Brook conservation area in Worcester has done this for the runoff from their parking areas and buildings.

Supported a comment by Gary Kleiman on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Gary Kleiman
and revising zoning to keep development out of current and FUTURE flood plains.

Supported a comment by Dorrie Kehoe on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Dorrie Kehoe
I think that there need to be better and more "downsizing" opportunities for long time Concord residents who would like to continue to live in Town even after they are not able to maintain their own houses. And when I write "downsizing" I am not talking about million dollar plus housing, but moderate, e.g. condominiums, stand along condominiums, small houses in the $500,000-$600,000 range. The Town could "incentivize" developers to engage in this kind of development by making taxes and zoning more friendly.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Yes, a conversation about this would be very helpful. Thank you.

Supported a comment by Melissa McBride on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Melissa McBride
I saw in one of your links all the topics you are addressing, the Healthy Community section is of particular interest to me. I would LOVE to see the conversation start around our communities use of and exposure to wireless radiation, as a significant and important health concern for our wonderful Concord community to learn about, especially as it relates to wireless radiation exposure to our students/children and the roll out of smart meters for all homes that is being planned by the light plant, a serious source of 24/7 powerful radiation that is harming many across the country.

Supported a comment by Regine Ryder on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Regine Ryder
Trails in the woods.

Supported a comment by Lori Pazaris on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Lori Pazaris
Our open space provides value not only to residents but to the entire region. It is difficult to place monetary value on the preservation of open space and other natural resources because it serves a number of purposes that fit the category "quality of life", namely recreation, inspiration and healing, but open space, plays a critical role in modulation of climate extremes such as extreme storms (e.g. flood control) and preservation of small water cycles (e.g. flood mitigation), providing wildlife habitat, and protecting important ecosystems. Open space supports and protects life.

Supported a comment by Diane Proctor on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Diane Proctor
A superb idea, Sanford. As a long term project, many changes in our transportation systems can be effectively implemented to reduce harmful emissions.

Supported a comment by Sanford Feman on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Sanford Feman
Electrify the commuter rail and eliminate diesel locomotives.

Supported a comment by Brian Foulds on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Brian Foulds
By 2030 transition 80% of our school bus fleet to electricity.

Supported a comment by Michelle Touw on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Michelle Touw
All large businesses should have to provide set % of renewable too, like solar, and there should be higher ratrs for high volune water usage by homes and businesses to reduce wasteful use of precious water supplies.

Supported a comment by Joe Stein on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Joe Stein
Am I the only one who finds this pro-development question "Where does farming fit in Concord's future" offensive? Concord has a rich tradition of agriculture and I believe the Town should do everything it can to ensure it remains so for the next several generations.

Supported a comment by Lori Pazaris on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

Lori Pazaris
The word sustainability can be defined in terms of leaving our children with the natural resources they will need for a healthy future. Sustainability must be considered and built into all aspects of the comprehensive plan. Energy is just one segment of sustainability. Maintaining and protecting open space using fewer materials in construction and other projects etc are examples.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 1 month ago}

When consultant keeps saying "change is going to happen whether we want it or not" or something to that effect, one wonders: Is anyone claiming otherwise? (Doubtful.) The question that then comes to mind is: Is consultant trying to pre-advocate for certain preferences, specifically: not just for conceivably appropriate development, but also for pre-arranged , pre-determined reduction policies in conservation measures, to smooth the road for any not-necessary development. Not dissimilar to some of the policies of the current national administration. Ideas perhaps especially based on closed door meetings with for-profit interests and with town management personnel some of whom have expressed resistance (per draft report) to natural preservation initiatives. This "baking- in implementation" approach raises concerns, especially when meetings with developers have taken place behind closed doors, and also since consultant has resisted similar meetings with conservation groups. Whatever improved transparency the CLRPC decides to provide from now on will not change this initial rigging of the field. Yes, change will of course happen, as transformation, as evolution. The way to go about is to tackle needs one by one, not to write off or reduce natural preservation measures from the start. In addition, we do not know what exactly might change in two or three years - demographically, ecologically, politically. So it is dangerous to establish pre-set policies. We can only identify immediate needs and future potential needs.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

CLRPC should take charge: The CLRPC needs to run its own public hearings as required by its charge and should not substitute consultant- led gatherings in their place. The CLRPC, not consultant, should formulate initial draft plan. Otherwise change the committee's charge to at least factually reflect what is happening . More public attendance at committee meetings is encouraged.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Even though I do not like to use the phrase "town character" and even though I do not think there can legally be a way to limit property purchases by developers or anyone else, I decided to support Joseph's original comment because I agree with its intention of keeping our streets treesy and preserving nature in general, and not in designated spots.

Supported a comment by Joseph Stein on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Joseph Stein
Place a annual cap on the number of properties purchased by developers. Developers are slowly eating away at town character with outsized McMansions - all in the name of profit.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Actually, the CHDC should have been subject to OML all along, because per definition of "public body" (OML laws) they are a housing related corporation for a public purpose, private or not. It does not matter that the Board of Selectmen took this specification out of their charge in 2009. They were still subject to OML. In July, the Selectboard reinstated this as if it were a request. The SB should have been more clear that there had been a violation, which now was being fixed. I spoke and wrote to the SB that they should be more clear about the violation that took place instead of implying that there was unclarity about this- for the sake of preventing any future potential breaches by various committees - but they were only interested in fixing the problem from now on.

Supported a comment by Michelle Touw on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Michelle Touw
ABSOLUTELY agree with all of the above. Sick of town supporting groups to bypass open meeting laws.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Thank you, Michelle. At an OML training on September 18th by the AG, I confirmed that subquorum subgroups of committees that are "assigned" a task are thus a subcommittee and subject to their own OML. The survey preparation was in violation as a result of this lesser known and rarely observed rule. Two designated CLRPC members worked with the consultant. Full survey was not vetted by committee before release, despite my plea to the co-chairs, citing OML, on September 19. The survey was instead released that same day. Only a superficial post- release discussion took place about technical matters on September 22. Moreover, per discussion with an assistant AG, the selection process of the consultant itself was very likely similarly in violation, because the committee that advised the Town Manager included a 3 person subgroup of the CLRPC selected/nominated by the members of the committee. I am fairly confident that had the full CLRPC had a chance to interview the chosen consultant, as would then be proper, some members would have raised questions about the "urban planning" expertise and any related philosophies of the consultant. On the other hand, had the consultant been chosen without an assigned subcommittee of the CLRPC, there would at least not be the appearance that CLRPC pre-approved this particular consulting firm. The RFP was prepared with collaboration between the Planning Division and the CLRPC, per 2016 minutes - so all in all, CLRPC in its entirety should have been involved at least in final approval.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Thank you. On my part, I thought the visitor center at Walden could have been smaller, if at all needed in the first place. It is a pleasant structure on its own, but there was too much tree loss to accommodate it- and in that sense, not in the spirit of the place. Separately, related to your comment, when there are human guides to lead visitors or to be available for information, the 'meaning' of a place is brought to the present time. I agree that screen interactions, while they can be informative, can also push the significance of the place into a matter of the past - ironically.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Yes, of great concern!

Supported a comment by Janet Anderson on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Janet Anderson
Make sure the land from the 18 local farms/10 farmstands don't get bought out by developers. Make it conducive to farm owners to be able to afford to live in and make a living in this town.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

do you mean the Old Manse visitor center plans or something else? just curious..

Supported a comment by Jon Stephenson on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Jon Stephenson
Also - I was just in Vail for a few days and while I was there they had fun competitions for the kids which incorporated running, mountain biking and tubing along the river through town... Something like that emphasizes to children the importance of getting outside and being active (instead of playing video games)... Why not sponsor activities like this for the kids

Supported a comment by Jon Stephenson on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Jon Stephenson
This one is random... One of the things that I love about this town which was why I moved back after growing up here is the abundance of outdoor activity options and the rich history. There so many ways to interconnect trails in this town and many beautiful streets abutting famous historical sites. There are also a # of people who love being active and enjoy these trails and roads... Lots of towns sponsor half marathons and other distance runs. Why not host either a half marathon trail which incorporates some of the historical sites, or a trail run which connects some of the beautiful land around town... We could use any proceeds to invest back into the town's infrastructure and continue fostering an outdoor lifestyle...

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

We can do a lot better with regards to acknowledging the Native American history in the region, and do it honestly.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

We need at least one more designated emergency shelter in the eastern portion of the town, for serious emergencies - potential climate related and even military emergencies. Having only Harvey Wheeler (for overly hot days etc) in West Concord is not enough for today's potential hazards.

Supported a comment by Joan Kennedy on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Joan Kennedy
Healthy watershed and water quality supported with town leadership and budget for future generations.

Supported a comment by Joan Kennedy on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Joan Kennedy
We need to ensure our Town ponds are protected from pollution and can continue to be a habitat for diverse wildlife and a source of enjoyment for future generations. Walden clearly has major historical significance and White Pond was also written about by Thoreau and both are located within a Priority Habitat of Rare Species.

Supported a comment by Todd Benjamin on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Todd Benjamin
Prudently broaden and diversify the non-residential property tax base to lessen the burden on existing and future homeowners, senior citizens, and others on fixed incomes. This will help to make housing more affordable and will help older residents remain in their homes.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

and be more frugal with some of our town meeting expenditures - for example, 1M or so extra funds from assessors went to improving web technology. Surely "some" of that could have gone to charitable causes instead. The CPC can also set aside more for affordable housing (for all; I don't mean Junction Village) and less for more discretionary allotments

Supported a comment by Alice Lehmann on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Alice Lehmann
West Concord Village, Thoreau Street, Main Street Concord Center - retail needs to focus more on residents not tourists! More restaurant options with variety and outside seating!

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

I like the restaurants with outside seating, Alice :-)

Supported a comment by Stephanie Chrobak on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Stephanie Chrobak
Farming, local goods, art...

Supported a comment by Lisa Ricci on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Lisa Ricci
It's important... Gaining Ground is an important part of this.

Supported a comment by Aimee Christian on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Aimee Christian
More opportunities for recycling and reducing use of plastic. Encourage businesses to use recyclable materials in takeout packaging and reduce use of napkins/utensils/straws/bags unless requested.

Supported a comment by Aimee Christian on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Aimee Christian
More fully adaptive and accessible playground (like the one in Sudbury) would enable all of our children to play together, regardless of need and ability.

Supported a comment by Lori Pazaris on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Lori Pazaris
Given predictions of increasing temperatures and climate instability, Concord’s next Comprehensive Long Range Plan should be guided by actions consistent with adapting to and mitigating climate change and keeping the town as cool as possible. Water is, also, a large issue; our land is drying out. Stopping emissions (from fossil fuel and development, etc.) and using healthy practices to maintain and further sequester CO2 in soil and vegetation are important. Currently 1/3 of Concord’s land is protected, but we should be aiming for 50%. According to a recent article,” In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases……. We’d also need to reverse deforestation and other land uses ….. . We would have to radically change our agriculture.” Link: http://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882. The article goes on to point out that “if we stop emitting carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels today….” there will be “a delay in air-temperature increase”… and “After maybe 40 more years, scientists hypothesize the climate will stabilize at a temperature higher than what was normal for previous generations.” It is believed that lawns are the largest agricultural sector, so solutions start with us and our communities.

Supported a comment by Cheryl Baggen on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Cheryl Baggen
What recreational facilities do you enjoy, and what would help your family stay active? As global warming and associated weather patterns change, the Town should review how best to protect its still water ponds, wetlands and vernal pools. Practices that were sufficient in the past will most likely be insufficient going forward and thus ecosystems associated with these areas will most likely be adversely impacted.

Supported a comment by Dorrie Kehoe on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Dorrie Kehoe
Wonderful that the Town is encouraging farming and glad that there seems to be a renaissance.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

more outdoor cafes would be nice

Supported a comment by Elissa Brown on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Elissa Brown
More restaurants/pubs. I know it doesn't always fit with existing parking requirements, but that seems to be the ways vibrant towns are going now that retail is fading away.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Yes. They are wonderful.

Supported a comment by Elissa Brown on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Elissa Brown
The libraries! They are beautiful, peaceful, warm in winter and cool in summer, and full of interesting reading and listening material and programs.

Supported a comment by Bob Andrews on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Bob Andrews
I think that Concord needs to view sustainability not just as having more solar panels and heat pumps but as a critical facet of almost everything we decide as a town. What we do about managing public water and waterways, supporting local and organic agriculture, introducing carbon sequestration practices into out use and care of land, what kind of housing we have. Just about anything we plan as a town either adds a lot of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or does not. Our actions remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or do not. Proper use of sustainability principles means that every decision is analyzed to pinpoint as closely as possible how it impacts climate change, which is our most critical threat as a community and a planet.

Supported a comment by Bob Andrews on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Bob Andrews
I think that one of the best ways for Concord to honor its history and culture is to follow in the steps of the transcendentalist writers and activists who were among its earliest community leaders. People like Thoreau and Emerson were students of the environment and nature; and they honored and respected it. They believed and preached that God was in nature. If they were alive today they would undoubtedly be advocates for applying the Town's four sustainability principles and in the APA sustainability standards which inspire this planning process to everything we do. Alongside of embracing technical sustainability measures such as solar energy, we need to put more emphasis on preserving nature. We need to put a halt to a relentless extinction of biological species that accompanies exploitation of nature. We need to return the soil beneath our feet to its natural state so that it will sequester carbon and grow good, nutritious food .We are doing some of this but sometimes preservation of nature calls for putting up something in a historical district that is not what is considered consistent with the historical monuments and houses. If we are to honor our past, we cannot just copy the past. We must act in the spirit of our forebears & do what they would do if they were alive today.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Thank you, Bob. I do not know what instance you have in mind with regards to natural preservation conflicting with historic character issues, but one thing for sure: natural preservation is important for everyone's well-being, all ages, all abilities, rich or poor - so thank you for your post.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

to support team: Thank you for re-instating my comment above, which you indicated to me was reviewed because of "sentiment value." As I wrote in response, sentiment is an important part of public dialogue, as long as there is no offensive language. Thank you again.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

It seems my comment here about survey problem Q 22 has been removed. Check: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/concord/conversations/messages/54304 I also wrote about the consultant agreeing with me on dismantling the term "town character" but then re-appropriating it to eventually "redefine" it. A contradiction. Either it is an elusive term, or not.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Closed door meetings with private interests and with town management staff have inappropriately derailed this public process, which the CLRPC, a public body, not consultant, is supposed to "lead." Please also read my response to consultant under general comments: https://courbanize.com/projects/envisionconcord/comments?ordering=-created&prompt=8.%20Sustainability&tag=General

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Hello Susan. However, the tensions you offer to solve are not to that extent. There aren't many "silos" in this town. The elders and the young may have slightly different "first" priorities per town's earlier survey, but they usually support each others' needs and an overall majority supports treesy neighborhoods, climate related sustainability, and schools. There may be disagreements at town meeting when a development proposal has evaded correct process, but discussions are rigorous and many-sided. Silos may be some development interests who, you mentioned at 9/8 CLRPC meeting, do not want to speak in public. It is wrong for CivicMoxie to hold closed door meetings with selected interest groups, - two with business partnerships who also invite CivicMoxie consultant to private function. Ideas you presented on September 22 are based on feedback from these for profit groups. (Where else was data from?) Also, you will not hold any conservation gatherings; after May 31 event, on June 9, you stated that views which supported conservation would be given lesser consideration. Now you suggest less environmental protection. Environmental protection benefits all ages. Alleged young/old tensions often are excuse for development interests. Town Management Team preferences from "planapalooza" meeting should not influence plan. Their function is implementation. "[T]he whole purpose of this comprehensive long range planning process" is for Concord's people to define, led by CLRPC, a public entity. CivicMoxie is hired with public money, to assist, not to "lead." Survey Q22 misleads. Survey's closed doors preparation and pre-full-review release violated OML.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

The consultant mentioned this idea of dismantling the term "town character" at the CLRPC's Sept. 22 meeting. However, she proposed to re-appropriate it to defining a different town character- to which I objected.
You can't first non-validate a term and then re-define and apply it for your own purposes. Her land use recommendations are along the lines of business and development interests, based on closed doors focus groups. Caution with survey: Question 22 on the survey has misleading phrasing, which equates land conservation with "town character" in option a, and groups acquisition of land with protection , and "housing needs" with tax-base developments in option b. People who wish to express a 'balanced' view of land use, perhaps for affordable housing support, will thus also be supporting less environmental protection and "tax base" related development. People who want conservation will thus be assumed to be doing so for "town character" (ie rather than the many concrete benefits of natural preservation.) Option c is there is enough open space land. You can't leave it blank, and there is no write in option.
I urge caution with the survey, which did not get the full final review by the Comprehensive Long Range Plan Committee before release - a process mistake on the part of the committee.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Ms. Silberberg mentioned during her presentation to the Comprehensive Long Range Plan Committee today (Sept.22) that they observed a tension between needs of the elderly and needs of youth. Anyone who has been in a "sandwich generation" situation knows that caring for the needs of the aging and the needs of the young can be taxing on time, energy, and resources. A helpful perspective is that generations need and benefit each other, for practical help, for guidance, and for emotional well-being to name a few ways. Approaching our priorities with this perspective may help come up with decisions that ultimately benefit everyone.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

Joseph: The term "town character", so widely used in surveys , town meeting, etc, is a misnomer in my opinion. It is a term that can easily be dismissed as subjective and vague. I have encouraged that more specific terms be used instead: Does one mean trees in neighborhoods, small houses, sidewalks, bike paths, historical sites? These are all distinct factors. My personal opinion is that when people complain about 'developments', they are often referring to tree loss (but that's just my opinion.)
As for limiting purchases by 'developers', I don't think that would be legally possible. A buyer is a buyer. Measures like a tree bylaw, however, may help, a little, perhaps...:-)

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

to Josh:
That is what I said.
It is not either or.
My comment was about the overall discussion, and not in direct response to you-- though I don't know where 'my' (non existent) grandkids come into this. Perhaps you meant "Concord's", or "your" grandkids.

It is also not just for the future. We bike and take shuttles now, too.

I commented above only because coUrbanize sent me a text that Valerie P. replied to a comment I supported, and I checked back to see what that comment was. My note was not a reply to your statement, in case you were given that impression by an email.

(The system does not seem to be precise in reporting who replied to whom or what exactly.)

BTW, for everyone's info: "envision" is part of Concord's Long Range Plan, which is the Planning Board's responsibility per Massachusetts Laws, and the Concord Long Range Plan Committee is charged to carry out the process. CivicMoxie is a consultant, and coUrbanize is a subcontractor. There is a fairly open discussion on this page, but other aspects of the process are not as transparent, and I have commented in letters.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 2 months ago}

The original message in this thread was about a shuttle around Concord. Safe bike paths are important, too, but it need not be either or, since different individuals have different needs,

Supported a comment by Linda Nieman on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

Linda Nieman
Would be great to have a mirror here so drivers can see southbound traffic around bend. Folks tend to speed on Old Bedford rd and it is difficult to see them when pulling out of Merriam Rd.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

A suggestion about visibility of ideas: For first time visitors: please note that there is also a "newest" option above. Otherwise only the most supported postings get the most frequent visibility.
For CivicMoxie or coUrbanize: Consider leaving the text response posts at the bottom of the pile (ie 'how did you get here?' 'where do you shop' etc.) -- so that citizen initiated needs, desires, and suggestions get better and easier visibility, and therefore better access to discussion, support, or other feedback.
(note: I do happen to be one of the supporters of the above idea as well.)

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

Thank you. However, I think one may be needed near Concord Center or East Concord as well. What I have in mind is not 'hot weather' type of emergencies, but unexpected and more urgent emergencies - hurricanes, tornadoes, and even military emergencies.. In any case, we may need one for other parts of town as well.

Supported a comment by Ruthy Bennett on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

Ruthy Bennett
Bike/pedestrian crossing at route 2, so people can easily travel to both sides of town, especially school aged kids riding their bikes.

Supported a comment by Ruthy Bennett on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

Ruthy Bennett
Some kind of shuttle all over Concord so people dont have to drive their car for a short trip or kids can have another option besides being driven.

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

Does Concord have an emergency shelter for natural or other emergencies?

Followed Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

Commented on Envision Concord ^{6 years, 3 months ago}

East Concord could use a bulletin board for neighbors to communicate

Tanya Gailus

Tanya Gailus's projects

Recent Activity