Wow!! How about tee shirts, a display at the libraries using Maria's photos, flyers everywhere - take and learn from the Stapleton kids - pressure, pressure, pressure. Anyone out there into graphic designs and catchy logos??? It's not easy being a private citizen!! Leslee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Willitts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Kathy Vassar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Elanor Ingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stephen Strout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ned Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "tom komola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Rob McCarthy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chris Visminis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Celia O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Bill Merriam (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andy Toorock (E-mail)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cindy L. Dionne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 12:04 PM Subject: Re: another thought--Re: Last Night re. Arthur St parcel
> Hi Kathy and everyone, > > First - thank you for the kind words said at the selectmen's meeting. I > truly appreciated them. > > Second - The turnout for the Arthur Street property was fantastic. I hope > you all continue to put the pressure on the BoS. Remember it is their > decision - pressure is necessary otherwise they will leave this hanging > until it is forgotten and ease it in quietly and quickly. Right now only > two support keeping the area for open space. John Kahn is not running for > re-election and I think he is the strongest supporter. The people could > pressure for at least a vote to preserve as open space and do the transfer > once everything is in place. Or some other version to make the BoS commit. > I saw a lot of tap dancing around the issue for the BoS with few definitive > statements. Remember the driving force here is "green" but believe me it is > not environmental green. I find it amazing that this town is willing to > give up land that we already own for money that is finite and gone > immediately for projects that are unrelated to the preservation of open > space. Dr. Hopkins has even thrown into the pot the use of this money for > Tercentennial Park. Whoa folks - is she trying to pit the Park and Rec > Dept. and the Conservation Commission at odds? Sounds like it to me. > > Third - Thanks to Ned Price for bringing the conflict of interest issue out > in the open. Charlie should have answered the question rather than > attacking Ned. I firmly believe that Charlie has a definite conflict of > interest and should recuse himself from this discussion and decision. I did > take the opportunity to discuss the issue with him during the break, but was > accused of "twisting things". But it remains that his employer stands to > gain from this project - definite conflict. > > Fourth - Continue to think about this "mixed use" idea. Yes this is a great > way to preserve large tracts of open space especially when a town can't > afford to purchase. This is ideal for the Northwest quadrant. But we are > not speaking about a large tract of land on Arthur Street. At most, if my > information (and Natick's) is correct, we have 23 acres of contiguous land. > Remember most of the 7 acres in Framingham is either wetlands or its buffer > zone. As the town continues to think of selling lots you reduce the parcel > down until all you have left is maybe a green corridor with development all > around. Wildlife habitat value is gone and human use value is so reduced > that it becomes insignificant. > I heard various suggestions ranging from 2 lots, four lots, five lots and > all of the 14 acres for development and save the Framingham 7 acres. This > is bogus!!! This is a slap to the people in this section of town. They > have no, I repeat NO, open space as natural wooded passive space. And that > is the whole point. I think Barbara Ford said it best - the BoS did not > listen regarding other matters for this part of town, will they listen this > time??? I think the dollar green is going to sway the thinking seeing that > the town manager is now implying that more than 1 million dollars can be > obtained. > > Thanks again to everyone and keep up the 'good' work. Maybe this is an > issue that should go straight to town meeting!!! Any thoughts on that > possibility?? > > As an aside, the people that will save this property are the citizens and > the town meeting members. You all have the push needed. You are the voter > and their positions depend on you not the other way around. Anyone > appointed by the BoS or the town manager carries no weight at all. Also if > anyone has the email addresses for the BoS members, please send them around > (again). This is a great tool to help keep the pressure going. The people > need to make them hear. Maybe its time to make some signs, get loud > (silently and politely), let them know how important this is. > > Keep it green! > Leslee > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kathy Vassar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 6:55 PM > Subject: Re: another thought--Re: Last Night re. Arthur St parcel > > > > i believe the downtown projects are different from the usual projects as > > they involve special permits.(more flexibility?) at least some, i > believe, > > may involve zoning changes. cpa would have helped and could help in the > > future but it isn't a sure thing and i think last night they were looking > > for some plan for the near future. kathy > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 4:29 PM > > Subject: Re: another thought--Re: Last Night re. Arthur St parcel > > > > > > > Hi folks: > > > > > > The planning Board does impose a 3% fee but so far it has to be used for > > > traffic mitigation even when another funds have been set aside for > certain > > > intersections... question...could they amend the policy to include open > > space > > > acquisition? > > > > > > Answer I get from the board members is they don't want to gtry to amend > > the > > > policy for fear the entire thing would be challenged and go down the > > drain.. > > > it is possible they would lose the whole matter. > > > > > > Another pososibility is by swasion --- as inBoston Properties who > > volunteered > > > to contribute - but that was a rezoning as you recall..... > > > > > > The CPA is the most certain way to accomplish our goals..... > > > > > > Keep thinking. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > Barbara Gray > > > > > > > > > [ To unsubscribe, send email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe > > Archives available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ > > For help send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Web interface at http://frambors.syslang.net] > > > [ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe > Archives available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ > For help send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Web interface at http://frambors.syslang.net] [ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=unsubscribe Archives available at http://www.mail-archive.com/ For help send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web interface at http://frambors.syslang.net]
