Time and again, in town after town, city after city, there is NO net gain to the taxpayers. It is a financial LOSS to them as they pay for higher costs in education and infrastructure. The taxpayers are, in every sense of the word, subsidizing the developers' profit margins to greater heights. Basically, it's welfare for developers.
Looks like it to me. The remarkable thing is that municipalities could easily calculate the financial impact on the schools for any given development, but they don't. That has to change.
A new article should be written ASAP that explains that next Monday, November 25th, the City Council will be voting on individual Framingham parcels to be included or excluded from the proposed MBTA Zoning District Plan. We need to put extensive pressure on Framingham City Councilors to vote to REMOVE THE 31-ACRE NOBSCOT PARCEL proposed on the MOD-4 map. ALL FRAMINGHAM RESIDENTS (not just the ones in Nobscot) will end up paying MORE TAXES to cover higher costs in education and the required infrastructure improvements that will be necessary, in addition to worsening the constant traffic gridlock and safety issues on Edgell Road, Water Street, and cut-through Belknap Road.
Monday's Framingham City Council vote was 5-5-1 to remove the Nobscot 31-acre parcel from the MBTA Zoning Proposal, so it did not pass. It needs a majority of 6 or more Councilors to remove it from the MBTA Zoning Proposal. It's ridiculous that such a contentious parcel of land totally opposed by the Nobscot and surrounding neighborhood residents should not be removed from the city's MBTA Zoning Proposal. It is the only parcel of land in the MBTA "proposal" that has attracted so much anger from the public. It's a mockery that the Framingham City Councilors don't respect the Framingham citizens' concern regarding the added tax burden, traffic congestion, elementary school enrollment, deterioration of public infrastructure, and other negative impacts to the Nobscot neighborhood, as well as to surrounding areas.
Note that Mike Cannon voted to exclude all MODs except Nobscot. If he had been consistent, it would have been excluded 6-4-1, with Mallach abstaining. Mallach could have also tipped the balance to 6. So Mike is for including Nobscot, and I have to painfully conclude, so is Mallach. The only certain votes against including Nobscot are: Steiner, Long, Ward, White Harvey, Bryant.
Nobscot and 9/90 are not. The state is requiring that 40% of the newly zoned areas be within 0.5 miles of the Commuter Rail. That is being complied with by other parts of the Framingham plan. However, one of the objectives is to put high density housing more generally near transit corridors. 9/90 has arguably the best highway access in Metrowest, which is why Staples put their headquarters there and across Rt 9 there is a major industrial park, with Bose, Sanofi etc. There is also a pre-K school on the Staples site, a park to ride connection adjacent, and access to super markets and pharmacies along Rt 9. That keeps a lot of the traffic off local roads, plus there is substantial infrastructure for water & sewer in the area. In a scheme to comply with the state MBTA Communities Law, the Staples property with its 48 acres is one of the best candidate properties. It also has the virtue of no developers hovering around instantly ready to develop it. Nobscot has 3 developers hot to develop it and the site is shovel ready.
I attended the last 2 City Council meetings on this issue. At the last they spoke of arranging meetings with residents to discuss other options. No meetings were arranged that I am aware of, just crickets.... There are plenty of other areas around the city that are begging for redevelopment, but somehow, last minute, this option is the one the Mayor and the Planning Board want to shove down our throats. Poor planning on their part shouldn't constitute an emergency (or burden) on the part of Framingham residents. How's this for stupidity--the plan at the last Council meeting was only looking at developing the parking lot of the Staple's property. Without the parking lot, who would even consider renting the buildings on that property???? They could have proposed redeveloping at least some of the buildings as well, increasing the number of units there and allowing for a decrease in the number proposed for Nobscot. That way they could come up with a compromise-- something more appropriate for the neighborhood. That Staple's parking lot wasn't even a real proposal, but that virgin land in the middle of Nobscot will be built up in no time, forever sticking us with a nightmare.
It is a melange of mistakes. The primary plan is to give the Nobscot developers a $20-30 million dollar gift. The intensity of the Mayor's effort to foist high density development on Nobscot has been hard to fathom. I am researching the personal connections involved and I just discovered that the Ottaviani's and the Foley's (one of the Nobscot developers) are business partners. So Phil has connections to this which he has not revealed. On the Staples property, the whole 48 acres should be rezoned for high density residential development. That would allow the Nobscot portion to be reduced to zero units and that property developed in a sound way in the future.
Geoffrey, why can't you publish an article stating that the Ottaviani's and the Foley's (one of the Nobscot developers) are business partners? The City Council Chair Phil Ottaviani shouldn't have a say in the Nobscot parcel.
I've heard Ottaviani comment a couple of times that developers have the right to build on their property. What they don't have the right to, in my opinion, is to be able to override existing building codes. The MBTA plan gives interested entities a convenient excuse to bypass those pre-existing codes. Sliding the Nobscot parcel in last minute when the Planning Board had years to come-up with a plan makes it really suspect. At one meeting Ottaviani made a disclosure regarding a couple of relatively small properties owned by his wife that could have been considered. I'd like to read the minutes to all of the meetings since the Nobscot parcel was added to see if he mentioned any connect to the developers, but it appears not all of the minutes have been approved and published. Several minutes are scheduled to be approved at Tuesday's meeting
Also, one of the principal Nobscot developers is Robert E Foley, former state Deputy Treasurer. He served time for stealing millions from the state: https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2002/01/30/treasury-scam-figure-sentenced-to/50986912007/. Also, one of the entities involved is the Joann Paradis Trust. Trusts are designed to hide their beneficiaries. Joann Paradis is a business associate of William Depietri, Phil Ottaviani's brother-in-law. If Depietri is involved in the Nobscot deal, it automatically means that Phil is excluded from deciding on the zoning issue by the state ethics code. Phil's wife, Valerie, was a partner in Southside Liquors at 624 Waverly St with Amelia Foley, who lives at the same address as Robert E Foley.
I plan to write an article on the issue prior to the next public hearing. I want to argue at minimum that Phil Ottaviani should disclose any relationships he has to the Nobscot developers, and recuse himself from decision making on the matter if he does have any.
Time and again, in town after town, city after city, there is NO net gain to the taxpayers. It is a financial LOSS to them as they pay for higher costs in education and infrastructure. The taxpayers are, in every sense of the word, subsidizing the developers' profit margins to greater heights. Basically, it's welfare for developers.
Looks like it to me. The remarkable thing is that municipalities could easily calculate the financial impact on the schools for any given development, but they don't. That has to change.
A new article should be written ASAP that explains that next Monday, November 25th, the City Council will be voting on individual Framingham parcels to be included or excluded from the proposed MBTA Zoning District Plan. We need to put extensive pressure on Framingham City Councilors to vote to REMOVE THE 31-ACRE NOBSCOT PARCEL proposed on the MOD-4 map. ALL FRAMINGHAM RESIDENTS (not just the ones in Nobscot) will end up paying MORE TAXES to cover higher costs in education and the required infrastructure improvements that will be necessary, in addition to worsening the constant traffic gridlock and safety issues on Edgell Road, Water Street, and cut-through Belknap Road.
Exactly right. Working on the next article(s).
Howard is right. Time is of the essence. This is a busy time of the year and I'm afraid that the word won't get out on time.
Monday's Framingham City Council vote was 5-5-1 to remove the Nobscot 31-acre parcel from the MBTA Zoning Proposal, so it did not pass. It needs a majority of 6 or more Councilors to remove it from the MBTA Zoning Proposal. It's ridiculous that such a contentious parcel of land totally opposed by the Nobscot and surrounding neighborhood residents should not be removed from the city's MBTA Zoning Proposal. It is the only parcel of land in the MBTA "proposal" that has attracted so much anger from the public. It's a mockery that the Framingham City Councilors don't respect the Framingham citizens' concern regarding the added tax burden, traffic congestion, elementary school enrollment, deterioration of public infrastructure, and other negative impacts to the Nobscot neighborhood, as well as to surrounding areas.
Note that Mike Cannon voted to exclude all MODs except Nobscot. If he had been consistent, it would have been excluded 6-4-1, with Mallach abstaining. Mallach could have also tipped the balance to 6. So Mike is for including Nobscot, and I have to painfully conclude, so is Mallach. The only certain votes against including Nobscot are: Steiner, Long, Ward, White Harvey, Bryant.
Totally agree.
How is either Nobscot or 9/90 (Staples) close to MBTA transportation???
Nobscot and 9/90 are not. The state is requiring that 40% of the newly zoned areas be within 0.5 miles of the Commuter Rail. That is being complied with by other parts of the Framingham plan. However, one of the objectives is to put high density housing more generally near transit corridors. 9/90 has arguably the best highway access in Metrowest, which is why Staples put their headquarters there and across Rt 9 there is a major industrial park, with Bose, Sanofi etc. There is also a pre-K school on the Staples site, a park to ride connection adjacent, and access to super markets and pharmacies along Rt 9. That keeps a lot of the traffic off local roads, plus there is substantial infrastructure for water & sewer in the area. In a scheme to comply with the state MBTA Communities Law, the Staples property with its 48 acres is one of the best candidate properties. It also has the virtue of no developers hovering around instantly ready to develop it. Nobscot has 3 developers hot to develop it and the site is shovel ready.
Very helpful. Thank you.
I attended the last 2 City Council meetings on this issue. At the last they spoke of arranging meetings with residents to discuss other options. No meetings were arranged that I am aware of, just crickets.... There are plenty of other areas around the city that are begging for redevelopment, but somehow, last minute, this option is the one the Mayor and the Planning Board want to shove down our throats. Poor planning on their part shouldn't constitute an emergency (or burden) on the part of Framingham residents. How's this for stupidity--the plan at the last Council meeting was only looking at developing the parking lot of the Staple's property. Without the parking lot, who would even consider renting the buildings on that property???? They could have proposed redeveloping at least some of the buildings as well, increasing the number of units there and allowing for a decrease in the number proposed for Nobscot. That way they could come up with a compromise-- something more appropriate for the neighborhood. That Staple's parking lot wasn't even a real proposal, but that virgin land in the middle of Nobscot will be built up in no time, forever sticking us with a nightmare.
It is a melange of mistakes. The primary plan is to give the Nobscot developers a $20-30 million dollar gift. The intensity of the Mayor's effort to foist high density development on Nobscot has been hard to fathom. I am researching the personal connections involved and I just discovered that the Ottaviani's and the Foley's (one of the Nobscot developers) are business partners. So Phil has connections to this which he has not revealed. On the Staples property, the whole 48 acres should be rezoned for high density residential development. That would allow the Nobscot portion to be reduced to zero units and that property developed in a sound way in the future.
Geoffrey, why can't you publish an article stating that the Ottaviani's and the Foley's (one of the Nobscot developers) are business partners? The City Council Chair Phil Ottaviani shouldn't have a say in the Nobscot parcel.
Am on it.
I've heard Ottaviani comment a couple of times that developers have the right to build on their property. What they don't have the right to, in my opinion, is to be able to override existing building codes. The MBTA plan gives interested entities a convenient excuse to bypass those pre-existing codes. Sliding the Nobscot parcel in last minute when the Planning Board had years to come-up with a plan makes it really suspect. At one meeting Ottaviani made a disclosure regarding a couple of relatively small properties owned by his wife that could have been considered. I'd like to read the minutes to all of the meetings since the Nobscot parcel was added to see if he mentioned any connect to the developers, but it appears not all of the minutes have been approved and published. Several minutes are scheduled to be approved at Tuesday's meeting
Also, one of the principal Nobscot developers is Robert E Foley, former state Deputy Treasurer. He served time for stealing millions from the state: https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2002/01/30/treasury-scam-figure-sentenced-to/50986912007/. Also, one of the entities involved is the Joann Paradis Trust. Trusts are designed to hide their beneficiaries. Joann Paradis is a business associate of William Depietri, Phil Ottaviani's brother-in-law. If Depietri is involved in the Nobscot deal, it automatically means that Phil is excluded from deciding on the zoning issue by the state ethics code. Phil's wife, Valerie, was a partner in Southside Liquors at 624 Waverly St with Amelia Foley, who lives at the same address as Robert E Foley.
Will you be questioning these relationship at tonight's meeting?
I plan to write an article on the issue prior to the next public hearing. I want to argue at minimum that Phil Ottaviani should disclose any relationships he has to the Nobscot developers, and recuse himself from decision making on the matter if he does have any.
Thank you!
Geoffrey, when will you publish another article? The next City Council meeting regarding this is December 3.
Likely Monday.