*I’ve appreciated the rigorous back-and-forth this past week - especially the
chance to correct my own misunderstandings and hear a range of perspectives.*
I’ve shared research in real time, welcomed debate, and stayed open to
learning. That’s the kind of civic discourse we need. And I’ll continue to
engage in good-faith conversations like this because I think it gets us all to
better outcomes. See below.
Joey
—
David wrote: *Farrington could apply directly to the state* for Route 2 access,
a process that takes no more than 40 business days, instead of relying on a
permanent easement across the Panetta land. [See here (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NQgym_rT_RQ9qKMhRSTr92i8WWD9IoqRIc7nSdBTzCM/edit?tab=t.0
) ].
I don't know anything about the process David outlines above, but this
completely ignores the fact that *Farrington has publicly stated (in the
meetings I've attended) that they want Page Rd* *access,* which is completely
separate from improving Rt 2 access. David - are you able to make the
connection to the Page Rd requirement that Farrington has stated? How does
improving Rt 2 access address that?
—
David wrote: A better deal, one that protects more of Farrington’s dry upland,
could have been proposed and still can be. Lincoln has not been presented with
meaningful alternatives.
*We do have other options - simply decline the deal and go explore them.* But
understand that this specific deal will likely disappear forever due to the
urgency Panetta and Farrington have expressed.
—
David wrote: Based on the town's GIS map, of the 77 acres being placed under
conservation, *fewer than 20 are buildable*. The rest are wetlands already
subject to environmental protection. [See an estimate here (
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nc0gBbIZ2STyfg8bcXD5YnpIE2r3IqZP ) ]
*This same GIS map was used by expert civil engineers (VHB, Inc)* who
specifically calculated that over 63 acres were "usable".
—
David wrote: As part of this deal, *over one third of Farrington’s usable land
(about 10 acres) will be cleared* for housing and septic infrastructure.
*I'm not clear on where this comes from.* Can you provide some evidence? My
understanding to-date is that Farrington is providing three acres of land - two
for development, one for septic.
—
David wrote: Before committing public money, we should be asking the project
sponsors to carry out a *wetland delineation exercise* , which will help us
determine the project’s true payout.
*Great ask. I fully support the attempt, but* also encourage us to be
clear-eyed about what our strategy will be if we don't get this done? Playing
out the scenarios - it either confirms that over 63 acres are buildable or it
confirms that wetlands shift over time, which is precisely why wetlands aren't
a protection, but Conservation Restrictions ( CRs ) are. I t appears to me
that CRs are valuable no matter what.
—
David wrote: The project will also create a 14-acre *Nitrogen-Restricted Area*
, where water quality is especially vulnerable to pollution from on-site sewage
systems.
*I* *defer to* *you, David, as I* *have* *not spent time studying it.* To-date,
my approach to the septic issue is that the City of Cambridge has much more at
stake than we do given their water supply depends on this and they have clearly
given their vote of approval on this project (they are contributing $800K).
Even if your analysis is correct, I'd love to hear what the City of Cambridge
would say given they are drinking the water.
—
David wrote: The trail on Farrington’s property is neither new nor 1.5 miles
long. Despite promotional claims, the trail is not a new amenity. It already
exists and is merely being “officialized.” Its actual length is only 0.7 miles.
[See proof here (
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nc0gBbIZ2STyfg8bcXD5YnpIE2r3IqZP ) ].
*Agree on both accounts.* Though "merely being officialized " is not a bad
thing. At the moment, I would argue that people are at risk of trespassing to
some degree and the town has no structure to maintain these trails. By
recognizing them formally we ensure they are maintained and the community is
able to confidently/safely use them in perpetuity.
—
David wrote: The town will pay *$950,000* to Farrington, which is *granting
Civico land* for five units and a septic system serving 20 homes.
*Not inaccurate, but incomplete.* Civico is also granting 12 acres of their
land to Conservation Restriction and more generally all of this is enabling 77
acres to be tied to CRs , given that neither Panetta or Farrington are willing
to put their land into CRs without this deal combined.
—
David wrote: Civico is paying only the *assessed value of $3.3 million* for the
Panetta parcel, a price that would typically allow just three homes under
current zoning...T his amounts to an *indirect public subsidy* of private
development.
*I think we agree that* *Civico* *wouldn't be able to engage in this deal
without the Town* *providing $950K in CPC funds.* Call it a subsidy or a
public/private partnership - the question comes down to "in exchange for what?"
The town is getting 77 acres in Conservation Restriction as well as 17 net-new
housing units which will contribute $91K in net-revenue growth to the town (per
the town's own financial analysis). That means the town is getting
conservation concessions plus a 10% annual return in perpetuity plus additional
housing stock which increases our proportion of affordable-housing.
—
David wrote: *This is not “mixed-income housing” by Lincoln’s standards.* Of
the 20 homes:
*
*14 will likely sell for $1.1 million or more*
*
*3 for around $400,000 (affordable units)*
*
*3 for over $2 million*
*Civico's* *application states that they plan the sale price for the affordable
units at $350K, 14 homes at $990K, and the 3 larger homes at $1.7M.* It's
correct that they are not legally bound to these numbers. The $990K homes are
15% below the average sale price in 2024 for Lincoln.
—
David wrote: For context: Lincoln’s *median home price is $1.1 million*. This
development does *not* expand the price range of local housing in any
meaningful way. [Comparable sales data available here (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NQgym_rT_RQ9qKMhRSTr92i8WWD9IoqRIc7nSdBTzCM/edit?tab=t.0
) ].
*I can appreciate this argument* with the comparable sales data indicating that
the actual sales price might be closer to $1.1M. I do think the proximity to
Rt 2 and constant noise is a big variable and it's not so clear to me that a
premium is anywhere near guaranteed.
—
David wrote: The Farrington abutters were involved in early planning
discussions, long before the public was informed, and are now among the
strongest supporters of the deal. This raises serious questions about fairness
and public process.
*I first heard about this project on April 27, 2025.* RLF has said publicly
that outreach and fundraising began in “April/May,” which aligns with my
experience. I’m also one of the larger Farrington abutters and a clear
supporter of the deal—so I assume David is referring to me here. But I’m
unclear on the insinuation. This is a private deal, now publicly disclosed, and
we’re in the middle of a robust, transparent community process. The public will
vote. That’s how it should work.
On Sun, Jun 01, 2025 at 7:36 PM, David Cuetos < [email protected] > wrote:
>
>
>
> This isn’t about opposing housing or conservation. It’s about making sure
> Lincoln gets a fair, transparent deal, that truly balances housing
> diversity, neighborhood impact, and responsible land use. To that end,
> here are five key facts that voters deserve to know about the Nature Link
> Proposal:
>
>
> *
>
> Conservation need not be tied to this housing deal
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> The proposed zoning change links limited conservation gains to a permanent
> development easement, but this tradeoff is not inevitable.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> Farrington could apply directly to the state for Route 2 access, a process
> that takes no more than 40 business days, instead of relying on a
> permanent easement across the Panetta land. [See here (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NQgym_rT_RQ9qKMhRSTr92i8WWD9IoqRIc7nSdBTzCM/edit?tab=t.0
> ) ].
>
>
>
> *
>
> A better deal, one that protects more of Farrington’s dry upland, could
> have been proposed and still can be. Lincoln has not been presented with
> meaningful alternatives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> Most of the "Conserved" Land Was Never at Risk
>
>
>
>
>
> Based on the town's GIS map, of the 77 acres being placed under
> conservation, fewer than 20 are buildable. The rest are wetlands already
> subject to environmental protection. [See an estimate here (
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nc0gBbIZ2STyfg8bcXD5YnpIE2r3IqZP )
> ]
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> As part of this deal, over one third of Farrington’s usable land (about 10
> acres) will be cleared for housing and septic infrastructure.
>
>
>
> *
>
> Before committing public money, we should be asking the project sponsors
> to carry out a wetland delineation exercise , which will help us determine
> the project’s true payout.
>
>
>
> *
>
> The project will also create a 14-acre Nitrogen-Restricted Area , where
> water quality is especially vulnerable to pollution from on-site sewage
> systems.
>
>
>
> *
>
> The trail on Farrington’s property is neither new nor 1.5 miles long.
> Despite promotional claims, the trail is not a new amenity. It already
> exists and is merely being “officialized.” Its actual length is only 0.7
> miles. [See proof here (
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1nc0gBbIZ2STyfg8bcXD5YnpIE2r3IqZP )
> ].
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> Town Money Is Enabling a Private Land Transfer
>
>
>
>
>
> Although town funds don’t go directly to the developer, they enable a land
> transfer to Civico that otherwise wouldn’t happen.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> The town will pay $950,000 to Farrington, which is granting Civico land for
> five units and a septic system serving 20 homes.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> Civico is paying only the assessed value of $3.3 million for the Panetta
> parcel, a price that would typically allow just three homes under current
> zoning.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> This amounts to an indirect public subsidy of private development.
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> This is not “mixed-income housing” by Lincoln’s standards
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Of the 20 homes:
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> 14 will likely sell for $1.1 million or more
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> 3 for around $400,000 (affordable units)
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> 3 for over $2 million
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The $990,000 “average price” estimate for the smaller homes appears
> crafted to suggest they’ll sell for “under a million”, but these figures
> aren’t
> binding and offer no affordability guarantee.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> For context: Lincoln’s median home price is $1.1 million. This development
> does not expand the price range of local housing in any meaningful way.
> [Comparable sales data available here (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NQgym_rT_RQ9qKMhRSTr92i8WWD9IoqRIc7nSdBTzCM/edit?tab=t.0
> ) ].
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> Also, only one teardown has occurred in Lincoln in the past two years,
> according to the building commissioner. Claims of disappearing affordable
> homes are overstated.
>
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> This development is pitting neighbors against each other
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Residents near Route 2 and the Panetta land will bear the brunt of
> increased density and disruption. Meanwhile, residents further down Page
> Road who abut Farrington benefit from new conservation restrictions behind
> their homes.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> The Farrington abutters were involved in early planning discussions, long
> before the public was informed, and are now among the strongest supporters
> of the deal.
>
>
>
>
> *
>
> This raises serious questions about fairness and public process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Cuetos
>
> Weston Rd
>
>
>
> --
> The LincolnTalk mailing list.
> To post, send mail to Lincoln@ lincolntalk. org ( [email protected] )
> .
> Browse the archives at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/ private/
> lincoln/
> ( https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/ ). Change your
> subscription settings at https:/ / pairlist9. pair. net/ mailman/ listinfo/
> lincoln ( 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.
