It is naive to think that adding hundreds of incremental units to Lincoln would have no downstream impacts that would actually go against what we are trying to achieve in the first place. The impact on municipal services would require an increase in property taxes that would force the most vulnerable residents out of town. The argument made below that by increasing units by 1,000 we would get 100 affordable units misses the fact that this would make the town unaffordable for current residents.
The HCAWG has not provided a response as to why no study has been conducted to estimate the actual impact (all they have shown is an analysis conducted for Oriole Landing, which uses a cost per pupil that is completely wrong), but we have two analyses we can use to triangulate. One conducted by a professional consultant in 2005 for a very similar scenario, and another conducted by a town resident, both of which point to a potential increase of almost 30% in property taxes (approximately $6,000 to the average homeowner per year): - The town actually asked a consultant (Sasaki Associates) to conduct a similar study back when a Hanscom Air Force base closure was in the cards around 2005. In that scenario, Lincoln would have had to absorb 850 new housing units at Hanscom. By happenstance this would be roughly equivalent to the impact of Option C. Option C could lead to 950 incremental units as it would rezone for up to 1,135 units versus the existing 185. - The Sasaki study concluded that expenses would go up by 63% and revenues would only go up by a corresponding 28%. The implication is that taxes for existing residents would need to increase by 27%. The study can be found at the HCAWG’s website. - David Cuetos’ analysis <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1L4j2Hr0CF0cSSW5ay12Ja-14Gcva0YY1Hx_oHWHT6sA/edit> of the fiscal impact of HCA rezoning leads to similar proforma tax increases (29%) in a full-buildout scenario. > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Louis Zipes <[email protected]> > Date: Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 11:37 > Subject: [LincolnTalk] November 21st meeting - question > To: ٍSarah Postlethwait <[email protected]> > CC: LincolnTalk.org <[email protected]>, [email protected] < > [email protected]> > > > Even in the scare tactics of '1123 max units' that would be pretty sweet > to have an additional, minimum 112 non age restricted affordable rate > units. Basically, you are coming close to same number of actual SHI units > (I mean the number of actual units that are accessible and not just puffed > up to count against total affordable inventory) that we have scraped > together over the last 60 plus years. 60 years! 60 years of Town Meetings, > studies, volunteer time, elected officials time, professional staff time, > etc. that tends to get overlooked when people look at an end result. > > https://www.rhsohousing.org/node/9293/housing-inventory > > (Ex Oriole Landing is counted as 60 but really it is 15 that are > affordable). > > Remember that the affordable rate is a sliding scale and not just one > number that a person or family needs to meet to qualify. > > And if Developers could actually sell 1011 'million dollar' units, because > let’s face it, that is what they would sell for in our neck of the woods, > we will definitely help our neighboring towns by taking out those buyers > from their housing pool. Even better that these type of people would > choose to live on much smaller lots and close to each other instead of > spreading out on one plus acre lots. > > I think they will be a great resource for our town! > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:47 AM ٍSarah Postlethwait <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I seem to be having an issue with my email, as it deleted most of what I >> wrote- here is the full reply I intended to send originally (hopefully!) >> >> __________________________________________ >> >> I think it's important to correct the misinformation here. >> >> The Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives have proposed E options >> that *DO* allow for development. >> >> They have also proposed E options that are completely overlaid with >> already developed areas and take credit for Lincoln's history of diverse >> housing opportunities, which may not result in housing units being built >> immediately. >> >> They have also proposed E options that are a mixture of the two above >> options. >> >> A wide *RANGE* of options have been proposed by the LRHA, because there >> is a wide *RANGE* of ways to comply with the law, and a wide *RANGE* of >> beliefs about how Lincoln should comply with the law. The LHRA believes >> that Lincoln's citizens should have been given the opportunity to have >> their range of voices represented on the December Ballot. >> >> The expansive E options were developed to represent the range that the >> HCAWG's proposals do not represent. >> >> Options C, D1, D2 and D3 only represent one side of the spectrum, and due >> to flaws with the state model, allow for almost *twice* the number of >> units to be built than what our town has been designated to zone for. >> The current revised Option C allows for more than a *50% increase *in >> Lincoln's current housing stock when you compare it to the 1123 max units >> that can be built. For reference, we have been tasked with rezoning for 635 >> modeled units. >> >> What is different about LHA's Options, is that they take into account the >> flaws of the HCA and the state model, and they do not allow the "Maximum" >> units that could be built to get out of control, as a 50% increase in >> Lincoln's housing stock would have major ramifications for this town. >> >> Furthermore, it's worth correcting this common HCA myth: the "letter of >> the law" actually allows communities to take credit for existing housing >> developments, and rezoning areas that are already developed is not frowned >> upon. "*Whether the proposed new district is currently undeveloped or >> "built out" with multi-family will have no bearing on compliance. * >> >> Thoughtful communities are finding a balance between receiving credit for >> the redeveloped areas that already exist while at the same time allowing >> for smart development opportunities near transit that will not have major >> unforeseen negative consequences on the town. >> >> Sarah Postlethwait >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 8:36 AM ٍSarah Postlethwait <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> You have been misinformed. >>> >>> The Lincoln Residents for Housing Alternatives have proposed options >>> that DO allow for development. >>> >>> Furthermore, the HCA “letter of the law” allows communities to take >>> credit for existing housing developments. “Whether the proposed new >>> district is currently undeveloped or “built out” with multi-family will >>> have no bearing on compliance. >>> >>> So rezoning areas that are already developed is not frowned upon. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 6:45 AM Rebecca Blanchfield <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> In response to the Selects’ post about the December 2nd Special Town >>>> Meeting, I’d like to pose a follow up question. To quote Andy Wang, “all >>>> the ‘E’ alternatives provided by the Lincoln Residents for Housing >>>> Alternatives are set up so that the majority of the land that is re-zoned >>>> are on existing multi-family areas and unlikely to be developed…So in that >>>> case, whatever 10% 15%, 25% of 0 is still 0.” >>>> >>>> My understanding is the HCAWG was tasked with putting forth options in >>>> both the letter and spirit of the law. While I believe the voices of those >>>> who are opposed to the spirit of HCA should indeed be represented, that >>>> opportunity will come at the March Town Meeting. I am concerned that adding >>>> an E option to the December 2nd ballot puts us at risk of rendering the >>>> March vote moot. In essence, there could be a potential “no housing” vs. >>>> “no housing” vote on the March ballot, suppressing the voices of those who >>>> believe in the spirit of the law. >>>> >>>> My question is this: what will the decision process be at the November >>>> 21st meeting? Will the HCAWG exclusively decide whether to include a >>>> potential option E, or was this working group created with an advisory >>>> capacity only? If not, will it be a majority of the Selects who make this >>>> decision? >>>> >>>> Thank you to the Selects, Planning Board, and HCAWG for all your >>>> patience and hard work! >>>> >>>> Rebecca Blanchfield >>>> -- >>>> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >>>> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >>>> Browse the archives at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >>>> Change your subscription settings at >>>> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> -- >> The LincolnTalk mailing list. >> To post, send mail to [email protected]. >> Browse the archives at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. >> Change your subscription settings at >> https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. >> >> -- > The LincolnTalk mailing list. > To post, send mail to [email protected]. > Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ > . > Change your subscription settings at > https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln. > >
-- The LincolnTalk mailing list. To post, send mail to [email protected]. Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/. Change your subscription settings at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
