Important! Reconsideration

[Deborah Brown]

Dear Town Meeting members,

It is very possible that we will finish Town Meeting on Wednesday, April 13th.

Therefore, I ask that anyone contemplating a Reconsideration Motion both (1) alert the Moderator directly, and (2) alert Town Meeting members and boards/committees through the TMMA email list - no later than 5pm on Monday April 11th. This includes providing a description of the new information that will be presented to support reconsideration.

This will give fair notice to the article sponsor, to boards/committees that need to develop their recommendations, and to Town Meeting members. 

Thank you, and please don't hesitate to reach out with any questions.

Deborah

617-512-7901

[Deborah Brown]

After careful consideration and soul searching, I am convinced that Ruth's proposal to argue reconsideration simply on the basis that some members disagree with Town Counsel's read of the noise bylaw is a bridge too far for this Moderator. I can't in good conscience allow that to be the basis of reconsideration and it would set a dangerous precedent for what could be offered in the future as new information for reconsideration.  (See my earlier email for a more detailed description of my concerns with this argument.)

I've explained to Ruth that she could move forward with an argument related to the high school feasibility study, if she chooses to move reconsideration.

I've urged both Taylor (10e) and Ruth (10f) to respond asap on this list to let members know their plans. And, as a reminder  if either of them decide not to move forward, any other member may move reconsideration BUT MUST LET THIS LIST KNOW BY 5PM TODAY.

Respectfully,

Deborah Brown

617 512 7901

[gjb...@rcn.com]

Last night Mike Cronan said that the entire recreation area is under consideration for the new high school, including the tennis courts and the bathroom facility.  I  wasn't aware of that before the vote on 10e and f.

Gloria Bloom, P4

[Ruth Thomas]

Susan, your remarks are out of order.  I have not watched January 6.  What happened on that date sickens and saddens me. We do not change outcomes by arming ourselves, bearing crosses, defecating on and otherwise defiling public property, or trying to overturn votes by violence towards law enforcement.  We are following agreed upon democratic procedures--meaning sometimes my side wins, sometimes your side wins; we try to change votes by using existing bylaws, and, in the end, we accept the outcome.   Your reference to January 6 is offensive and you owe TMMs an apology.

Ruth Thomas, 4

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 2:08 PM Susan Kingsbury <susanb...@icloud.com> wrote:

Interesting. I was always aware that any large parcel of land would be considered for a new high school. This has been the narrative for years. Can we be sure that a call for Reconsideration is truly new information? Otherwise, it sounds like people didn't like the outcome and want to do something to change it. We have all seen this movie before. It is called January 6th. 

On Apr 12, 2022, at 1:30 PM, gjb...@rcn.com wrote:

Last night Mike Cronan said that the entire recreation area is under consideration for the new high school, including the tennis courts and the bathroom facility.  I  wasn't aware of that before the vote on 10e and f.

Gloria Bloom, P4

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/1785542538.192789954.1649784313471.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.

[Dinesh Patel MD]

I agree with Ruth

We should avoid such language

Let us please focus on current topic 

Thanks 

Dinesh 

Precinct 6 tm 

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 12, 2022, at 2:28 PM, Ruth Thomas <rth...@bu.edu> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CADvQVgxnUdX0r8pkDiMEzDjHpQLdaqdt6E%2BtiyQs9DLr%2Bcq%2Brg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Mark Andersen]

Gloria,

The information you are mentioning about the HS build location was known and knowable at the time.  That is not new information in general, and I think the question for reconsideration is whether new information was revealed that was not generally knowable or known.  Many of us were talking and thinking about balancing the unpredictability of the HS project site location at the debate on these articles.

In case you did not see the other materials, if you watch the video (I saw someone else shared it on the TMMA list) of the earlier meeting about HS siting which has the town manager showing the footprint of a multi-story HS, or look at the report on footprint of the similarly sized Belmont building (Article 25 report https://www.lexingtonma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif7101/f/pages/article_25_revised_2.14.22_worthen_road_land_use_plan.pdf slide 12) , it becomes clear that the new LHS complex does not necessarily need to occupy as much area as the current LHS complex.  Slide 10 of the article 25 presentation mentions the land swap with recreation land, something which was discussed at the meeting on siting.  While building directly on the town courts and track (or for that matter the pool) might be conceivable, it requires a recreation/education land swap, destroys existing infrastructure, puts the high school directly abutting residences, and therefore seems less likely.  If anything has risk, it would be the closest object (the bathrooms), and I sure hope we can save some $$ on construction by providing our own instead of paying for throne-kings -- something I was thinking about in supporting usable bathrooms.  Looking at the image, I suppose the greatest risk is to the bathrooms themselves.

In short, the vote may have reflected uncertainty about the HS location, or I suspect it would have been more decisive.  Information was available suggesting the high school siting was unknown.

Respectfully,

Mark Andersen

Precinct 9

Image from presentation on article 25, slide 12:

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:25 PM <gjb...@rcn.com> wrote:

Last night Mike Cronan said that the entire recreation area is under consideration for the new high school, including the tennis courts and the bathroom facility.  I  wasn't aware of that before the vote on 10e and f.

Gloria Bloom, P4

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/1785542538.192789954.1649784313471.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.

--

Mark Andersen, Ph.D., CFA

781-325-8190 (m)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/markvandersen/

https://mylocaltaxes.com

https://twitter.com/MarkVAndersen

https://mfganalytics.wordpress.com/

[Avram Baskin]

I think that in the response from Mike Cronin that follows he confirms the building and tennis courts, as well as the track an football field, could be part of the location for the new high school.

Avram Baskin

TMM, Precinct 2

Be yourself, 

everyone else is already taken

Oscar Wilde

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Cronin <mcr...@lexingtonma.gov>
Date: April 12, 2022 at 4:25:50 PM EDT
To: Avram Baskin <avram....@icloud.com>
Subject: RE: [LexTMMA] Important! Reconsideration



Hi Mr Baskin

 

I would suggest that the entire area is available for consideration.  Now, the town could instruct the working group to NOT include specific areas and not allow the new school to be built there.  For example, I would think it near impossible to consider the pool area for the new school.  That philosophy could be used for the tennis courts and/or the track, etc… Therefore, if the town indicates that specific areas should not be considered, they will be excluded from the conversation. 

 

Mike Cronin

Director of Public Facilities

201 Bedford Street

Lexington, Ma. 02420

781 274 8958

 

From: Avram Baskin <avram....@icloud.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Michael Cronin <mcr...@lexingtonma.gov>
Subject: Fwd: [LexTMMA] Important! Reconsideration

 

Mr. Cronin,

 

Is the track and football field area open for consideration as part of the discussion of the new high school?

Avram Baskin

TMM, Precinct 2

Begin forwarded message:

From: gjb...@rcn.com
Date: April 12, 2022 at 1:25:19 PM EDT
To: Deborah Brown <camp...@gmail.com>
Cc: lextmma <lex...@googlegroups.com>, Ruth S Thomas <rth...@bu.edu>, Taylor Singh <taylorcar...@gmail.com>, Barry Orenstein <barryor...@gmail.com>, L Rhodes <lisah...@gmail.com>, marilyn fenollosa <mmt.fe...@verizon.net>, Marilyn Fenollosa <mfeno...@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Important! Reconsideration



[Tom Diaz]

It was my inference, during the debate on Article 10f, that the land on which the courts are situated might conceivably be targeted as part of the new high school territory.  This was obviously before we heard Mr. Cronin speak.  I think he did say, when he spoke, that of course all sizable tracts of land in the town would be considered and nothing was off the table.  That was no news to me.

During the 10f debate, at least one speaker made what I thought was a good point:  a new high school, wherever it sits eventually, is many years away, and meanwhile we have responsibilities to the public for providing good playing fields and courts and so on.

Tom Diaz

Precinct 3

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/A383480F-8532-4B55-BD26-C21D997F4BA9%40icloud.com.

--

_______________________
Thomas R. Díaz

3409 Main Campus Drive

Lexington, Massachusetts 02421

Text: (781) 454-9946

[Andrea Fribush]

Thank you to all for this information.

I would be surprised if the new high school, or a driveway leading to it, would be sited where the tennis courts are now, so close to the property line.  Would the neighbors be more or less happy about that than they would be about pickleball courts?   

Currently, our courts are not in nearly as good condition as the courts are in many of the towns to which our school teams travel.

Andrea Fribush

Pct 6

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAMFDu-H_Ru-o5x-foEJGjQ50XBmPX4KTdPNAzNvm-vz9RMSh7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[S. K]

Town Meeting Members,

The bar for voting for reconsideration is a high one, and has to be based on significant, legitimate new information. The idea that the new high school would be built in the area where the courts are located is not credible.

First, the town has it would not build over the pool area, and you cannot build on the basketball courts without building over the pool. Second, building the school on the tennis and pickleball courts would put the construction literally on the doorstep of some neighbors who complain about noise of a little pickleball, yet building the school there would bring a noise level and permanent disruption to their neighborhood at a  totally different level. It would never happen. Finally, to build over those courts you would also have to destroy the track and the turf fields where the town  just invested millions. 

In short the idea that we would destroy the resurfaced area is not credible, and so it does not justify reconsideration. Vote no on reconsideration.

Regards,

Steve Kaufman

TMM, Precinct 5

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAHTwabH6HwEEDG33mn3rs6raxqBW31Qo-3EFRLRo7Y_HG_t-bA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Avram Baskin]

Why is it not credible?  In the response I received from Mike Cronin, he said that “the entire area is available for consideration”.  That seems credible to me.  He doesn’t even completely rule out the pool area, although he said it would be “near impossible”.  Although the the town may instruct the working group to exclude specific areas in the future, right now the town has not ruled out any area.

Is it unthinkable to temporarily close the pool and tennis courts to make way for a new LHS, if perhaps better facilities would be built in the future at what would be the now vacant location of the current high school?

Avram Baskin

Precinct 2

On Apr 13, 2022, at 7:21 AM, S. K <sbkau...@gmail.com> wrote:

Town Meeting Members,

The bar for voting for reconsideration is a high one, and has to be based on significant, legitimate new information. The idea that the new high school would be built in the area where the courts are located is not credible.

First, the town has it would not build over the pool area, and you cannot build on the basketball courts without building over the pool. Second, building the school on the tennis and pickleball courts would put the construction literally on the doorstep of some neighbors who complain about noise of a little pickleball, yet building the school there would bring a noise level and permanent disruption to their neighborhood at a  totally different level. It would never happen. Finally, to build over those courts you would also have to destroy the track and the turf fields where the town  just invested millions. 

In short the idea that we would destroy the resurfaced area is not credible, and so it does not justify reconsideration. Vote no on reconsideration.

Regards,

Steve Kaufman

TMM, Precinct 5

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 4:50 PM Mark Andersen <markan...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Gloria,

The information you are mentioning about the HS build location was known and knowable at the time.  That is not new information in general, and I think the question for reconsideration is whether new information was revealed that was not generally knowable or known.  Many of us were talking and thinking about balancing the unpredictability of the HS project site location at the debate on these articles.

In case you did not see the other materials, if you watch the video (I saw someone else shared it on the TMMA list) of the earlier meeting about HS siting which has the town manager showing the footprint of a multi-story HS, or look at the report on footprint of the similarly sized Belmont building (Article 25 report https://www.lexingtonma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif7101/f/pages/article_25_revised_2.14.22_worthen_road_land_use_plan.pdf slide 12) , it becomes clear that the new LHS complex does not necessarily need to occupy as much area as the current LHS complex.  Slide 10 of the article 25 presentation mentions the land swap with recreation land, something which was discussed at the meeting on siting.  While building directly on the town courts and track (or for that matter the pool) might be conceivable, it requires a recreation/education land swap, destroys existing infrastructure, puts the high school directly abutting residences, and therefore seems less likely.  If anything has risk, it would be the closest object (the bathrooms), and I sure hope we can save some $$ on construction by providing our own instead of paying for throne-kings -- something I was thinking about in supporting usable bathrooms.  Looking at the image, I suppose the greatest risk is to the bathrooms themselves.

In short, the vote may have reflected uncertainty about the HS location, or I suspect it would have been more decisive.  Information was available suggesting the high school siting was unknown.

Respectfully,

Mark Andersen

Precinct 9

Image from presentation on article 25, slide 12:

<image.png>

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:25 PM <gjb...@rcn.com> wrote:

Last night Mike Cronan said that the entire recreation area is under consideration for the new high school, including the tennis courts and the bathroom facility.  I  wasn't aware of that before the vote on 10e and f.

Gloria Bloom, P4

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/1785542538.192789954.1649784313471.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.

--

Mark Andersen, Ph.D., CFA

781-325-8190 (m)

https://www.linkedin.com/in/markvandersen/

https://mylocaltaxes.com

https://twitter.com/MarkVAndersen

https://mfganalytics.wordpress.com/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAHTwabH6HwEEDG33mn3rs6raxqBW31Qo-3EFRLRo7Y_HG_t-bA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CA%2BK%3Dc46XeP9Hgrtb_84DwTRzr-K7OT3SUjP6JmTE5TQNOR1E1Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[sarabothwellallen]

Respectfully, it has sounded to me as though building on the area where the track is located is most definitely within the realm of possibilities and that the courts may be very disturbed in the process even if the building would not be located right there. (Even relocating the underground portion of the Vine Brook was discussed as a possibility!  "Everything being on the table" was a broader statement than I had imagined prior to listening to the working group meeting.)

While some of us watched the March 29 working group meeting live, hearing the statements about "everything is on the table" for a possible new LHS siting, not all TMMs did or could. I have heard from some TMMs who were not aware of the depth of siting uncertainty until after they voted for the projects on March 30. The working group recording was posted April 4th. We all heard that uncertainty described this Monday (April 11) in the course of the LHS feasibility article, which changed some TMMs' understanding. For them, this was new information. Whether it may change their calculation about the urgency of the need for these two projects or not is the point of a reconsideration vote.

It is in the interest of not spending millions of additional funds that may only be torn up within a few years that has some TMMs concerned, and some did not understand the risk of being torn up to be real until Monday. I think that is why understanding the timing and duration of the feasibility study was the focus of so much discussion on Monday night.

If TMMs feel everyone should have had this understanding prior to the March 30 vote, they can vote against reconsideration. If TMMs feel this information is new to them or to other TMMs, they can vote for reconsideration. I have heard enough from conversation with other TMMs that I will be voting for reconsideration of these articles, even though my own votes on the articles are unlikely to change.

Sara Bothwell Allen

precinct 6

[Lauren Black]

Hello all

I'll make note that per the specific process of the MSBA, everyone involved in the process has to be clear that all options are on the table. Were Mr. Cronin, Dr. Hackett or anyone else associated with the process to come out and say something is off the table a priori then we jeopardize our inclusion in this very important process. This is in fact why you will also hear Mr. Cronin, Dr. Hackett and the S.B. always refer to the possibility of "renovation or new construction" because renovation has to be a considered option, even if many of us would agree that that is unlikely to be the best one. 

The key here is that just because something is a possibility, does not make it a likely one. One can express that we have to keep all options open- and that means that all options, including those with a 1% or less likelihood of being chosen -  and still recognize that the barriers associated with some of them are too high to make them feasible. For example, while land swaps between the town and the school system are possible, the specific constraints of such a swap make it something that is not likely, particularly with the requirement of a like for like switch in land which is not very plausible with the center rec complex and the high school. 

I will also note that while I am talking about possibilities, some things that are certain:

1) Our fellow town citizens with disabilities cannot adequately use the restroom facility at the town recreation complex. This is exclusionary and based on our own overwhelming vote on the inclusion resolution should be taken into account. 

2) The current women's restroom location is unsafe.

3) The tennis and basketball courts are used continuously during the warmer months and are in bad shape and need of resurfacing.  

I will also second the posts that others have made about the fact that everything was on the table for the location of the high school was not new information. In addition, while I'm no arborist, the concern over the pine trees along the back of the tennis courts (which I believe is completely unrelated to our vote here), in my mind is also a red herring, Post-tension court construction will likely mean excavation of 12-18" at most. without knowing the slab depth under the current courts I would assume it is 6-12" at least. Since these trees are older, I would be shocked if their root system was somehow only to a depth of 18", and if they are, then perhaps that would explain why the trees are not in great shape and need to be removed regardless of whether the tennis courts get redone. 

In summary, I strongly urge my fellow town meeting members to vote "no" on reconsideration of articles 10e and 10f.

Best,

Lauren Black

TMM Precinct 8

[andrei rădulescu-banu]

> Post-tension court construction will likely mean excavation of 12-18" at most. without knowing the slab depth under the current courts I would assume it is 6-12" at least. Since these trees are older, I would be shocked if their root system was somehow only to a depth of 18", and if they are, then perhaps that would explain why the trees are not in great shape and need to be removed regardless of whether the tennis courts get redone.

I wish I could say we knew that. But we don't know it. Information about trees needing to be cut down was not made available for the 10e and 10f articles. The trees had been fine for 30-40 years, and, just a few days after the vote, they were not fine.

Andrei Radulescu-Banu, Pct 8

--

=====================

Andrei Rădulescu-Banu

86 Cedar St, Lexington MA
617.216.8509 (m)

=====================

[Lauren Black]

With all due respect Andrei, we actually don’t need to know that. A town contracted arborist has already ruled that the trees are in bad shape and likely need to come down and this was reported prior to the start of town meeting. I encourage everyone to read the full article from the LexObserver here: https://www.lexobserver.org/news/37-white-pines-removal , which details the timeline of the review and summarizes the findings. From the article (bold emphasis mine):

Brady’s “purpose was to conduct an inspection of the root zone, stem, and canopy of the trees as a tool to assess overall health, structure, and stability,” he wrote in his assessment. But Brady was dismayed by his findings – especially by the fact that 24 of the 37 had co-dominant stems, per his report, which he estimated had first developed decades ago. Worse, he found “vertical cracks” and “seepage” in many of these trees among multiple signs of serious structural concern. Brady also found that the root zones, extending deep into the “active yards” of residents on one side and under the tennis courts on the other, had been “impacted by intrusions,” which he said is true of “many trees in suburban environments” and is less of a problem than the stem issues, despite the source of original resident concern. Finally, he wrote of observing “a bit more deadwood than I would like to see in White Pines of this size and age” in the canopies. “Decay in itself is not a problem – it’s the extent of the decay and the location of the decay,”

Also note that the arborist’s report was asked for by the abutters to the center rec complex land the report to the town was dated February 18. The only reason there was a recent open forum and this news article about it is because the residents received word of the findings of the study that they had requested and wanted to further discuss with the town the recommendations of removing all of the trees. 

This is not new information, just like the possibility of the high school being built anywhere on town property is not new information. The trees need to come down no matter what. 

Lauren Black

TMM, Precinct 8

Sent from my iPhone so please excuse the brevity, misspellings, and poor punctuation.

On Apr 18, 2022, at 11:24 PM, andrei rădulescu-banu <bitdr...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Dinesh Patel MD]

Here is info passed on by Jerry Harris if this helps in this discussion 

Dinesh Patel

Precinct 6 tm 

From: Jerry Harris <jerry...@gmail.com>
Date: April 16, 2022 at 2:41:40 PM EDT
To: Jerry Harris <jerry...@gmail.com>
Subject: Tree Weekend Update: New Tree Committee Statement; LexObserver Article



Hello, 

Just a quick weekend update. I hope you're all enjoying the beautiful weather. 

-- 

The Tree Committee issued a new statement on Thursday regarding the role of the Tree Committee and "jurisdiction" as it pertains to the 37 Pines or any stand of trees in Town.It is available on the website http://preserve-lex-trees.org. 

-- 

The LexObserver has posted an article covering the 37 Pines on its website at https://www.lexobserver.org/news/37-white-pines-removal. 

--

See you all later!

Jerry

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 19, 2022, at 7:50 AM, Lauren Black <dee...@gmail.com> wrote:

With all due respect Andrei, we actually don’t need to know that. A town contracted arborist has already ruled that the trees are in bad shape and likely need to come down and this was reported prior to the start of town meeting. I encourage everyone to read the full article from the LexObserver here: https://www.lexobserver.org/news/37-white-pines-removal , which details the timeline of the review and summarizes the findings. From the article (bold emphasis mine):

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LexTMMA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lextmma+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/603A9FF1-4B06-4720-A331-9C2FFA36D694%40gmail.com.