<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: This Week&#8217;s Smart Growth Debates</title>
	<atom:link href="http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/</link>
	<description>Planning and Managing Human-Friendly Development and Growth</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-198</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jan 2007 04:40:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-198</guid>
		<description>Reads like this project needs a yardstick to prove it's point. It's not a controversial issue in Natick, so why the over-the-top barrage of messages? 
We're a suburb of Boston, and this project has no grocery within walking distance, no bus route to the Natick Mall, no schools to walk to, no shopping nearby. I think the problem is the white collar vs blue collar dynamic on why the Paperboard was forced to give up their business here. Read http://natick.wordpress.com for future updates. Right now, the only controversy in town is why the Town Administrator is leaving and why a Selectman has decided not to run. Sounds a little like Mayberry USA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reads like this project needs a yardstick to prove it&#8217;s point. It&#8217;s not a controversial issue in Natick, so why the over-the-top barrage of messages?<br />
We&#8217;re a suburb of Boston, and this project has no grocery within walking distance, no bus route to the Natick Mall, no schools to walk to, no shopping nearby. I think the problem is the white collar vs blue collar dynamic on why the Paperboard was forced to give up their business here. Read <a href="http://natick.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://natick.wordpress.com</a> for future updates. Right now, the only controversy in town is why the Town Administrator is leaving and why a Selectman has decided not to run. Sounds a little like Mayberry USA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JM</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator>JM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-161</guid>
		<description>(continued...)

A few of the reasons why the project at Natick Paperboard is preferable to the South Natick Hills project are:

1.  Natick Paperboard is only 0.3 miles from the commuter rail station and 0.4 miles from Natick center, with continuous sidewalks along the route.  Residents have the option of walking to jobs and retail downtown, or to the train to Boston.  South Natick Hills is 1.4 miles from the train station and lacks sidewalks along a portion.  Residents will likely drive everywhere, increasing traffic congestion and pollution.

2.  Natick Paperboard is a previously disturbed, abandoned industrial site with possible environmental contamination.  Redeveloping that site into housing would be an improvement to the environment.  Destroying the undeveloped woods and wetlands at South Natick Hills will eliminate wildlife habitat and open space.

3.  The Paperboard site qualifies as a smart growth location, eligible for hundreds of thousands of dollars of state grants to offset the burden of educating the children who live there.  South Natick Hills will not garner any state money.

4.  South Natick Hills will be a complex of 4-story apartment buildings, completely out of scale with the surrounding single-family houses on half-plus acre lots each.  Natick Paperboard abuts other light industrial buildings and multi-family houses.

5.  South Natick Hills will disturb protected wetland resources including streams, vernal pools and the habitat of state-protected species.  Natick Paperboard, to my knowledge, has no wetlands on the site.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(continued&#8230;)</p>
<p>A few of the reasons why the project at Natick Paperboard is preferable to the South Natick Hills project are:</p>
<p>1.  Natick Paperboard is only 0.3 miles from the commuter rail station and 0.4 miles from Natick center, with continuous sidewalks along the route.  Residents have the option of walking to jobs and retail downtown, or to the train to Boston.  South Natick Hills is 1.4 miles from the train station and lacks sidewalks along a portion.  Residents will likely drive everywhere, increasing traffic congestion and pollution.</p>
<p>2.  Natick Paperboard is a previously disturbed, abandoned industrial site with possible environmental contamination.  Redeveloping that site into housing would be an improvement to the environment.  Destroying the undeveloped woods and wetlands at South Natick Hills will eliminate wildlife habitat and open space.</p>
<p>3.  The Paperboard site qualifies as a smart growth location, eligible for hundreds of thousands of dollars of state grants to offset the burden of educating the children who live there.  South Natick Hills will not garner any state money.</p>
<p>4.  South Natick Hills will be a complex of 4-story apartment buildings, completely out of scale with the surrounding single-family houses on half-plus acre lots each.  Natick Paperboard abuts other light industrial buildings and multi-family houses.</p>
<p>5.  South Natick Hills will disturb protected wetland resources including streams, vernal pools and the habitat of state-protected species.  Natick Paperboard, to my knowledge, has no wetlands on the site.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JM</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-160</link>
		<dc:creator>JM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 18:36:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-160</guid>
		<description>Dave, I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but you should re-check your sources.  I am not dead-set against the South Natick Hills project.  I am disappointed that the 50-acre parcel of open space and wetlands is going to be developed, and I don't think it is the best location for 270 new housing units.  But I realize that a majority of Natick voters aren't interested in paying to preserve it, as evidenced by the defeat of the Community Preservation Act last spring, and that development pressures in the region are very high.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dave, I&#8217;m not sure where you&#8217;re getting your information, but you should re-check your sources.  I am not dead-set against the South Natick Hills project.  I am disappointed that the 50-acre parcel of open space and wetlands is going to be developed, and I don&#8217;t think it is the best location for 270 new housing units.  But I realize that a majority of Natick voters aren&#8217;t interested in paying to preserve it, as evidenced by the defeat of the Community Preservation Act last spring, and that development pressures in the region are very high.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2007 05:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-157</guid>
		<description>Obviously, Mr Ostroff, Natick Selectman, and the member of the Conservation Commission who wanted to remove the link to my site, have an interest in this project.  It's not a major issue in town, so it should be interesting in how it plays out.  I'm simply amazed at the over-the-top interest. 
The bigger issue in town, is a similar project only larger, which is 2 miles away, on the same street. Both of these town officials are dead-set against it. Could it be just one more case of Natick politics?  Why would one situation be "smart" while the other "sprawl"?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obviously, Mr Ostroff, Natick Selectman, and the member of the Conservation Commission who wanted to remove the link to my site, have an interest in this project.  It&#8217;s not a major issue in town, so it should be interesting in how it plays out.  I&#8217;m simply amazed at the over-the-top interest.<br />
The bigger issue in town, is a similar project only larger, which is 2 miles away, on the same street. Both of these town officials are dead-set against it. Could it be just one more case of Natick politics?  Why would one situation be &#8220;smart&#8221; while the other &#8220;sprawl&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Ostroff</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-152</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Ostroff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:41:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-152</guid>
		<description>Nothing under Chapter 40S cites the requirement that the residential development be within walking distance to a school.  See http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw05/sl050141.htm

Mr. Wodeyla also has cited a concern about environmental hazards at the site, and suggested that someone should blow the whistle.  That's a real concern, but one that the developer is fully on the hook to resolve.  

As I said, the issue we face is what to do with this particular parcel.  We really have two choices: 40R development that we can influence, or 40B development that we can not influence.  It's fine to throw up a smokescreen but it doesn't do much to influence the process.

By the way, the Town Meeting vote to establish the 40R district was 108-2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nothing under Chapter 40S cites the requirement that the residential development be within walking distance to a school.  See <a href="http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw05/sl050141.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw05/sl050141.htm</a></p>
<p>Mr. Wodeyla also has cited a concern about environmental hazards at the site, and suggested that someone should blow the whistle.  That&#8217;s a real concern, but one that the developer is fully on the hook to resolve.  </p>
<p>As I said, the issue we face is what to do with this particular parcel.  We really have two choices: 40R development that we can influence, or 40B development that we can not influence.  It&#8217;s fine to throw up a smokescreen but it doesn&#8217;t do much to influence the process.</p>
<p>By the way, the Town Meeting vote to establish the 40R district was 108-2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-149</guid>
		<description>"the State has another law that will allow for reimbursement for additional school costs for development under the Smart Growth program. "

I wonder what the state will decide when they discover that the schools are all a bus trip away.  (not within current town guidelines for walking)  In other words, more than 2 1/4 miles.  Not smart when it comes to getting kids to school.

Smart Growth has it's niche, but not in this case. It's just another big housing project that the town needs for it's tax base.  I wish they had thought about lack of classroom space, and the additional needs for school transportation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;the State has another law that will allow for reimbursement for additional school costs for development under the Smart Growth program. &#8221;</p>
<p>I wonder what the state will decide when they discover that the schools are all a bus trip away.  (not within current town guidelines for walking)  In other words, more than 2 1/4 miles.  Not smart when it comes to getting kids to school.</p>
<p>Smart Growth has it&#8217;s niche, but not in this case. It&#8217;s just another big housing project that the town needs for it&#8217;s tax base.  I wish they had thought about lack of classroom space, and the additional needs for school transportation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joshua Ostroff</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>Joshua Ostroff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Dec 2006 14:46:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-146</guid>
		<description>I don't understand the claim that the owner of the Paperboard industrial site ever requested a TIF (Tax Increment Financing), which may have made them more competitive by significantly reducing their state taxes.  What is not requested can not be "denied."  A TIF would have committed them to expanding and investing in Natick; instead they closed the plant and saved themselves $3 million per year (from the Newark Group's Annual Report).

The owners sold the property at auction and a local developer was selected, has worked with the Town, has produced a project that may not be perfect but is far preferable alternative to other intensive residential development (i.e. 40B).  Next comes a site review process into which there will be extensive public input and town oversite.  

Unfortunately, the Town does not currently have the resources to buy the site and use it for open space or other purposes.  Nearby Weston can spend #22 million on open space, and that's great for Weston.  We don't have that luxury. 

In the long term, Natick Center will be able to support the types of retail and services that are necessary to a cohesive neighborhood.  Residential redevelopment is not everything, of course.

Another point... the State has another law that will allow for reimbursement for additional school costs for development under the Smart Growth program.  It's fair to ask if the costs of services outweigh additional tax revenue.  We have to strike a balance knowing that we don't have a blank piece of paper, but difficult choices. 

Anyway... these are some of the facts that don't see the light of day when a blog disables comments.  Thanks for providing this forum.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand the claim that the owner of the Paperboard industrial site ever requested a TIF (Tax Increment Financing), which may have made them more competitive by significantly reducing their state taxes.  What is not requested can not be &#8220;denied.&#8221;  A TIF would have committed them to expanding and investing in Natick; instead they closed the plant and saved themselves $3 million per year (from the Newark Group&#8217;s Annual Report).</p>
<p>The owners sold the property at auction and a local developer was selected, has worked with the Town, has produced a project that may not be perfect but is far preferable alternative to other intensive residential development (i.e. 40B).  Next comes a site review process into which there will be extensive public input and town oversite.  </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Town does not currently have the resources to buy the site and use it for open space or other purposes.  Nearby Weston can spend #22 million on open space, and that&#8217;s great for Weston.  We don&#8217;t have that luxury. </p>
<p>In the long term, Natick Center will be able to support the types of retail and services that are necessary to a cohesive neighborhood.  Residential redevelopment is not everything, of course.</p>
<p>Another point&#8230; the State has another law that will allow for reimbursement for additional school costs for development under the Smart Growth program.  It&#8217;s fair to ask if the costs of services outweigh additional tax revenue.  We have to strike a balance knowing that we don&#8217;t have a blank piece of paper, but difficult choices. </p>
<p>Anyway&#8230; these are some of the facts that don&#8217;t see the light of day when a blog disables comments.  Thanks for providing this forum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-144</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-144</guid>
		<description>Depends on the family makeup of the condo buyers.  Impacts on school, and public safety haven't been studied. There's nothing controversial about the project, as the old factory is pretty ugly, but looking at the area, and the traffic concerns, make this just one more reason the commute situation for residents will get worse.  It's not an urban area where people walk to a bus to go to work, nor within walking distance of a variety of shopping. In other words, Natick isn't as urban as Medford, Alston, Brighton, or any number of cities ringing Boston. We're a suburb with the major shopping being in a mall about 4 miles away from the downtown Main St. where this project will be built. And the closest supermarket is about 2-3 miles up the road. 
There's another proposal for the other end of Main St, nearly the same distance to downtown, yet everyone who favors this project has already taken a stance against that one.  What's good for some, isn't good for others. I think it's political.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Depends on the family makeup of the condo buyers.  Impacts on school, and public safety haven&#8217;t been studied. There&#8217;s nothing controversial about the project, as the old factory is pretty ugly, but looking at the area, and the traffic concerns, make this just one more reason the commute situation for residents will get worse.  It&#8217;s not an urban area where people walk to a bus to go to work, nor within walking distance of a variety of shopping. In other words, Natick isn&#8217;t as urban as Medford, Alston, Brighton, or any number of cities ringing Boston. We&#8217;re a suburb with the major shopping being in a mall about 4 miles away from the downtown Main St. where this project will be built. And the closest supermarket is about 2-3 miles up the road.<br />
There&#8217;s another proposal for the other end of Main St, nearly the same distance to downtown, yet everyone who favors this project has already taken a stance against that one.  What&#8217;s good for some, isn&#8217;t good for others. I think it&#8217;s political.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mark</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-143</link>
		<dc:creator>mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-143</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comment, dave. Is it your opinion that the new development will cost the town more than it adds to its tax base?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comment, dave. Is it your opinion that the new development will cost the town more than it adds to its tax base?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dave</title>
		<link>http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/comment-page-1/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://virtuocity.com/2006/11/22/this-weeks-smart-growth-debates/#comment-142</guid>
		<description>The Paperboard site was not "abandoned" but put up for sale out of desperation. They had requested similar status given Mathworks only about 2 miles north, a tax gimmick called a TIF. Paperboard was denied, thus forced to move out.  I guess as long as people don't mind the traffic increases, and expect no increased need for public services, it's OK. However, putting hundreds of condos in a small old fashioned neighborhood will only serve to cost the town more in the long run. 

My blog is primarily historical in nature, but whenever I post an opinion about current events, two town officials make desperate efforts to spoil it. Thus, the two come here. I think the neighborhood concerns speak to the issue, and readers can decide for themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Paperboard site was not &#8220;abandoned&#8221; but put up for sale out of desperation. They had requested similar status given Mathworks only about 2 miles north, a tax gimmick called a TIF. Paperboard was denied, thus forced to move out.  I guess as long as people don&#8217;t mind the traffic increases, and expect no increased need for public services, it&#8217;s OK. However, putting hundreds of condos in a small old fashioned neighborhood will only serve to cost the town more in the long run. </p>
<p>My blog is primarily historical in nature, but whenever I post an opinion about current events, two town officials make desperate efforts to spoil it. Thus, the two come here. I think the neighborhood concerns speak to the issue, and readers can decide for themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
