Mr. Epstein you seem to imply that City Hall had/has an agenda favoring the land owners/developer of MOD 4A? If this is your position, I agree. You should complete your essay by adding these corresponding/compelling facts:
The current landowners of the involved Edmands/Edgell parcels only began their property acquistions once the Mayor was elected. $4,900,000 has been spent to buy these properties beginning early in 2022. $5,600,000 since MBTA CA was enacted. Prior to the Mayor's election, the interested parties had purchased a total of $1,258,993 (starting in 1997) of these properties and none since 2016 (these "early" land purchases were part of an attempt to bring a Market Basket to Nobscot). Would a rational business invest this large amount of money in land zoned mostly for single family homes and a material portion of which contains massive ledge, without a firm believe the zoning would get changed so that economically favorable construction could occur?
Nothing you wrote up there helps me understand how you would approach balancing the City's budget to live within our financial means. So I won't further engage here with you about it because you are doing a good job touring your agenda and not answering my question of you as a declared mayoral candidate.
The city budget is always balanced by law. The key to financial stability in Framingham is to: (1)Ensure that property taxes rise with typical inflation, so we don't erode the workforce and services; (2) Attend to maintenance for roofs, roads, water & sewer in a timely manner, so we don't build a backlog as we have right now which stands at $400 million (3) Reap the $3 million/year in utility savings we could get from installing solar panels on all city-owned buildings and solar canopies in all city-owned parking lots (4) Ramp up curbside composting to cut the trash stream by 40% and save $700,000/year (5) Expand pre-K to handle all 4-year-olds in the city to cut the very expensive cost of downstream educational remediation. This expansion would use space at the old Marion HS to provide classrooms (6) Complete the transition to inhouse busing to restore our basic ability to get kids to school on time and prevent the rising education damage from late buses and the expensive remediation this causes (7) Boost the commercial sector by focusing on removing the current roadblocks to small business development and try to get Costco to go into the Staples commercial area (8) Lower the cost of water to residents by paying for water & sewer system large capital projects from the tax levy, which is tax deductible, rather than from fees, which are not tax deductible (9) Adopt an MBTA Communities Act compliance plan following the Wayland model, to reduce the financial impact on the city by a factor of 2 compared to the current approach (10) Expand Keefe Tech by adding more space to handle the 300 kids currently on its waiting list, boosting job opportunities for kids with a HS education and solving the capacity problem at FHS in the least expensive way. (11) Fill the many vacancies in DPW, so we use inhouse crews to do roads and water & sewer repairs, rather than expensive outside contractors. (12) Bring in the state Division of Local Services to do a top to bottom financial review of the city's operations (13) Break the long tradition of the old boy network that has run Framingham for 25 years, dealing favors to contractors and developers, by electing a Mayor who comes from outside that network and is dedicated to improving Framingham.
I am no fan of Mayor Sisistky and neither have I been a fan of the workings of City Council. Agree that there is a lack of transparency and possibly worse. The City Council and Mayor are sometimes literally and openly disrespectful to the public and also us taxpayers because their actions tell us that they do not seem to understand that our income and expenses are out of balance.
So while I am glad that there is a mayoral challenger to Sisistky, I question your assertions that the multifamily real estate developments that are being zoned for in order to comply with T Communities will all be 3 bedroom units. Such a position ignores that even if 3 bedroom units are permissible that there are other limiting factors such as financial feasibility, which includes that a multifamily development - especially rental development which many of these T Communities projects will be - will not be 100% three bedroom units. Show me one multifamily development of any scale that is 100% three bedroom units. Doesn't happen because that is not what demand is calling for predominantly and therefore such a project would not be able to find construction financing. That's why there aren't any - checks and balances.
Respectfully, your position seems to sowing cancel culture divisiveness. It sounds like you don't want development because will bring more students to our school system. What kind of City do we want to be? One that welcomes new residents, which includes families, or one that tries to stop further new in migration that leads to a fiscally stronger City?
T Communities is not going anywhere anytime soon as the constitutionality of the law was just upheld by the courts. We need a strong mayor who leads City Council to make good decisions - how much tax incentive is necessary to entice development (if any, depending on location), how many affordable units to require, and to have the taxpayers in front of mind with all of these decisions and negotiations. Right now the Mayor and City Council spend money like there is no tomorrow, and there is zero accountability. That is simply unacceptable and is likely to continue to lead to annual increases in property taxes that are not affordable to many, even many who are well employed.
If you want to be Mayor of Framingham, please stop the scare tactic and start talking about how you are going to balance the budget to live within our means and how you will lead the City to a strong foundation of fiscal prosperity and ongoing full disclosure about everything to citizens and taxpayers.
There is no doubt that the Mayor's CBD plan relaxes permit control on the bedroom count in apartments and so will increase the student flow into FPS, which already will need to add another elementary school in the next 5 years if the student population continues to follow its current trend. No matter what the MBTA CA response, impact on the schools has to be figured as part of the planning process. The newer notion is that Framingham needs to get credit for the large contribution it has already made to residential unit creation, and that is done by paper zoning. For a start, Framingham can designate Waterview Terrace, 1500 & 1550 Worcester Rd, The Green at 9 &90 as MBTA CA zones and get 1,140 units towards its 4,335 MBTA CA requirement. It can do likewise for multiple other existing apartment buildings, including Windsor Green (510) and The Buckley (210) upping the total. It can then make an added minimum area centered on the Commuter Rail station on Rt 135 to produce the final 40% of 4,335. That is a good approach. At least 60% would then be paper zoning. Marborough did 100% paper zoning. Wayland did 58% paper zoning. Ashland did 80% paper zoning. There is a way forward to solve the MBTA CA issue. On all the other issues, you can consult the many articles I have written for The Framingham Observer on finances, taxes, education, infrastructure, environment to outline my thinking. There are no scare tactics, simply analysis, reasoning and dozens of new approaches to shift Framingham back onto a rising trajectory. You will see a clearer policy picture as my campaign website, FB page and YouTube channel come into public view over the next month. You can menwhile, look at he interview I gave Access Framingham TV at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1RUzOHeR3E&t=615s.
Mr. Epstein you seem to imply that City Hall had/has an agenda favoring the land owners/developer of MOD 4A? If this is your position, I agree. You should complete your essay by adding these corresponding/compelling facts:
The current landowners of the involved Edmands/Edgell parcels only began their property acquistions once the Mayor was elected. $4,900,000 has been spent to buy these properties beginning early in 2022. $5,600,000 since MBTA CA was enacted. Prior to the Mayor's election, the interested parties had purchased a total of $1,258,993 (starting in 1997) of these properties and none since 2016 (these "early" land purchases were part of an attempt to bring a Market Basket to Nobscot). Would a rational business invest this large amount of money in land zoned mostly for single family homes and a material portion of which contains massive ledge, without a firm believe the zoning would get changed so that economically favorable construction could occur?
You got that right!
What a sh$t show this is. Get rid of this mayor and the others that undermine common sense and teamwork. WTF
Exactly!
Nothing you wrote up there helps me understand how you would approach balancing the City's budget to live within our financial means. So I won't further engage here with you about it because you are doing a good job touring your agenda and not answering my question of you as a declared mayoral candidate.
The city budget is always balanced by law. The key to financial stability in Framingham is to: (1)Ensure that property taxes rise with typical inflation, so we don't erode the workforce and services; (2) Attend to maintenance for roofs, roads, water & sewer in a timely manner, so we don't build a backlog as we have right now which stands at $400 million (3) Reap the $3 million/year in utility savings we could get from installing solar panels on all city-owned buildings and solar canopies in all city-owned parking lots (4) Ramp up curbside composting to cut the trash stream by 40% and save $700,000/year (5) Expand pre-K to handle all 4-year-olds in the city to cut the very expensive cost of downstream educational remediation. This expansion would use space at the old Marion HS to provide classrooms (6) Complete the transition to inhouse busing to restore our basic ability to get kids to school on time and prevent the rising education damage from late buses and the expensive remediation this causes (7) Boost the commercial sector by focusing on removing the current roadblocks to small business development and try to get Costco to go into the Staples commercial area (8) Lower the cost of water to residents by paying for water & sewer system large capital projects from the tax levy, which is tax deductible, rather than from fees, which are not tax deductible (9) Adopt an MBTA Communities Act compliance plan following the Wayland model, to reduce the financial impact on the city by a factor of 2 compared to the current approach (10) Expand Keefe Tech by adding more space to handle the 300 kids currently on its waiting list, boosting job opportunities for kids with a HS education and solving the capacity problem at FHS in the least expensive way. (11) Fill the many vacancies in DPW, so we use inhouse crews to do roads and water & sewer repairs, rather than expensive outside contractors. (12) Bring in the state Division of Local Services to do a top to bottom financial review of the city's operations (13) Break the long tradition of the old boy network that has run Framingham for 25 years, dealing favors to contractors and developers, by electing a Mayor who comes from outside that network and is dedicated to improving Framingham.
I am no fan of Mayor Sisistky and neither have I been a fan of the workings of City Council. Agree that there is a lack of transparency and possibly worse. The City Council and Mayor are sometimes literally and openly disrespectful to the public and also us taxpayers because their actions tell us that they do not seem to understand that our income and expenses are out of balance.
So while I am glad that there is a mayoral challenger to Sisistky, I question your assertions that the multifamily real estate developments that are being zoned for in order to comply with T Communities will all be 3 bedroom units. Such a position ignores that even if 3 bedroom units are permissible that there are other limiting factors such as financial feasibility, which includes that a multifamily development - especially rental development which many of these T Communities projects will be - will not be 100% three bedroom units. Show me one multifamily development of any scale that is 100% three bedroom units. Doesn't happen because that is not what demand is calling for predominantly and therefore such a project would not be able to find construction financing. That's why there aren't any - checks and balances.
Respectfully, your position seems to sowing cancel culture divisiveness. It sounds like you don't want development because will bring more students to our school system. What kind of City do we want to be? One that welcomes new residents, which includes families, or one that tries to stop further new in migration that leads to a fiscally stronger City?
T Communities is not going anywhere anytime soon as the constitutionality of the law was just upheld by the courts. We need a strong mayor who leads City Council to make good decisions - how much tax incentive is necessary to entice development (if any, depending on location), how many affordable units to require, and to have the taxpayers in front of mind with all of these decisions and negotiations. Right now the Mayor and City Council spend money like there is no tomorrow, and there is zero accountability. That is simply unacceptable and is likely to continue to lead to annual increases in property taxes that are not affordable to many, even many who are well employed.
If you want to be Mayor of Framingham, please stop the scare tactic and start talking about how you are going to balance the budget to live within our means and how you will lead the City to a strong foundation of fiscal prosperity and ongoing full disclosure about everything to citizens and taxpayers.
There is no doubt that the Mayor's CBD plan relaxes permit control on the bedroom count in apartments and so will increase the student flow into FPS, which already will need to add another elementary school in the next 5 years if the student population continues to follow its current trend. No matter what the MBTA CA response, impact on the schools has to be figured as part of the planning process. The newer notion is that Framingham needs to get credit for the large contribution it has already made to residential unit creation, and that is done by paper zoning. For a start, Framingham can designate Waterview Terrace, 1500 & 1550 Worcester Rd, The Green at 9 &90 as MBTA CA zones and get 1,140 units towards its 4,335 MBTA CA requirement. It can do likewise for multiple other existing apartment buildings, including Windsor Green (510) and The Buckley (210) upping the total. It can then make an added minimum area centered on the Commuter Rail station on Rt 135 to produce the final 40% of 4,335. That is a good approach. At least 60% would then be paper zoning. Marborough did 100% paper zoning. Wayland did 58% paper zoning. Ashland did 80% paper zoning. There is a way forward to solve the MBTA CA issue. On all the other issues, you can consult the many articles I have written for The Framingham Observer on finances, taxes, education, infrastructure, environment to outline my thinking. There are no scare tactics, simply analysis, reasoning and dozens of new approaches to shift Framingham back onto a rising trajectory. You will see a clearer policy picture as my campaign website, FB page and YouTube channel come into public view over the next month. You can menwhile, look at he interview I gave Access Framingham TV at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1RUzOHeR3E&t=615s.