Judy Hill

Location

Joined

November, 2017

Recent Activity

Supported a comment by Tanya Gailus on Envision Concord 1 year, 4 months ago
Tanya Gailus
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 1 year, 4 months ago
That public hearing is important, as is the event the next night April 26 on the Climate Solutions Series, 7:30 at Willard School. See the flyer here: http://files.constantcontact.com/c6979f58201/cf7581ca-fdff-4d4c-b39e-9e84efa8c42f.pdf
Supported a comment by Tanya Gailus on Envision Concord 1 year, 4 months ago
Tanya Gailus
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."
Supported a comment by Tanya Gailus on Envision Concord 1 year, 4 months ago
Tanya Gailus
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.
Supported a comment by Tanya Gailus on Envision Concord 1 year, 4 months ago
Tanya Gailus
Thank you, CLRPC, for agreeing to post the above requested documents. Much appreciated.
Supported a comment by Tanya Gailus on Envision Concord 1 year, 5 months ago
Tanya Gailus
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.