Quite frankly, I’m not happy that we’re returning for a Special Town Meeting tonight. Following Annual Town Meeting, I expressed my feelings and demanded better answers than just “oopsies” on the Articles we are returning for at the May 13, 2014 Board of Selectmen meeting. These were unanswered by Town Administrator Dave Ragucci- literally. He just sat there while Bill Solomon exasperatedly repeated his prior explanation.
The next day I found out that my demand for accountability was more than justified. Why do I mention this? Because it’s for scenarios like this that our Town seems to have difficultly following State laws and regulations – and somehow there are no ramifications for it!
But alas, here we are, so let’s see what we’re dealing with. The following attachments are from this week’s issue of The Stoneham Independent:
Page 1: https://growingstoneham.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/sia-a.pdf
Find out what's happening in Stonehamfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Page 2: https://growingstoneham.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/sia-a1.pdf
Page 3: https://growingstoneham.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/sia-a2.pdf
Find out what's happening in Stonehamfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Stoneham resident Tara Lawler wrote an email that I feel well-summarizes why we should vote “no” on both articles tonight, so I’m sharing it here:
From: Tara
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:48 PM
To: My Stoneham Neighbors
Subject: Special Town Hall Meeting June 19th
When I read about yet another special meeting on June 19th for the lease extension on the Greenway/Bike Path I thought to myself maybe let the businesses have until October 15, 2014. But then I further read and researched – back in 2009 the businesses had leased Town-owned property that would expire on June 30, 2014. Five year notice is quite sufficient in my opinion. And who’s to say come October 15th they would not yet again ask for more time, since there doesn’t seem to be an exit strategy in place? The stated intent of the abutters is to occupy the RR ROW on a permanent basis. They have declined an opportunity to discuss the matter at this time.
This project has been in the making for over twenty five years, and my guess is that the businesses thought this day would never come. There are two businesses asking to extend the June 30th lease until October 15th. One of the businesses at Montvale Plaza wants the extension to help with their parking situation. Their employee parking is on the Greenway/Bike Path. Solution: park across the street at the medical office since social events are on weekends or evenings when the doctors’ offices are closed. Or use the building on the current parking lot that MP bought a few years back to expand their parking lot.
It is not that I am trying to go against businesses in town or make it difficult for them to operate, but in fact quite the opposite. I see a risk to losing $5.5 MILLION dollars if the 49 foot width is not cleared. This Greenway/Bike Path will link three communities together. My hope is to improve business in town, free advertising along the route, stay for lunch in town, or grab a coffee, etc. The abutters were asked about the impact on their businesses at a Bike Path Committee meeting. Both parties indicated that it would require extra effort to move but that it was possible.
As we all know, 40B is a hot topic in town – well did you know that every bit of land, such as the RR ROW, that is subtracted from the ‘denominator’ of the ‘acreage’ calculation moves us closer to satisfying the state requirements for low income housing?? Yes: every bit of land ***such as the RR ROW*** that is subtracted from the ‘denominator’ of the ‘acreage’ calculation moves us closer to satisfying the state requirements for low income housing. MAPC calculations excluded from the denominator the railroad ROW and counted the ROW as land that is owned by a governmental agency. The ROW land has been correctly subtracted from the denominator and this is in the Town’s best interest in calculating the 1.5% standard. It is possible that a lease of the land for a non-governmental purpose could negatively impact the above; the ROW land would therefore not be subtracted from the denominator thus increasing the burden on the numerator.
And another note, anything less than the 49 feet for the Path will just look like a sidewalk; which we have plenty of those in town. Let’s allow our community to actually ENJOY Stoneham instead of having to “walk the lake” in Wakefield!
Please attend the Special Town Meeting on June 19th at 7 pm and vote NO on extending the leases.
~Tara
