[AB2006] Letter in the TAB about Lowe's

[johnath]

A person wrote a letter to the TAB about why he wanted Lowe's to build
in Brighton.
Not one person wrote a comment against his letter. Is it because he
was unemployed or because he made sense?
I would be interested to hear from people who are opposed. I agree
with him and should have made a comment but was waiting for people to
disagree with him.
John Thompson

--
To post to this group, send email to AllstonBr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en

[nan evans]

I don't read the TAB, so didn't see the letter. Even if I had,
although I often compose letters in my head to respond to newspaper
articles and letters to editor, I never seem to get them onto paper.

I did sent a letter to the BRA explaining why I disagree.

Nan Evans

--
Law Office of Nan Evans
(617) 556-8282

[Eva Webster]

On 5/16/10 7:04 PM, "johnath" <joh...@comcast.net> wrote:

> A person wrote a letter to the TAB about why he wanted Lowe's to build in

> Brighton. (...) I agree with him and should have made a comment but was

> waiting for people to disagree with him.

Those who haven’t seen that letter in the Tab, I don’t know the writer, but I copied and pasted his letter below (after my comments) -- or you can read it by opening this link:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/allston/news/x1560858646/Letter-to-the-TAB-Lowe-s-it-s-all-about-jobs-for-Allston-Brighton

BTW, some people may not realize the Lowe's project is actually within zoning -- albeit as conditional use — i.e., it’s NOT forbidden under Article 51. It’s a use that’s allowed subject to a mitigation agreement, where the city may specify some conditions.

The Boston Transportation Department, which has traffic specialists on staff to impartially evaluate traffic studies, has concluded that Lowe’s is NOT going to have a crippling effect on A-B’s traffic. (The BTD representative stated that in the last public meeting about this project.)

I agree with the BTD in this case.  There are SEVERAL big stores (including Home Depot, Target, Best Buy, and Marshall’s) concentrated in the Arsenal/Watertown Malls area -- and yet my husband who uses Arsenal Street to commute to work does not find the traffic near those stores intolerable, and nor do I when I go there.

And there are neighborhoods just like ours in Cambridge (near Fresh Pond Mall), Newton, Dedham, Somerville, Dorchester, etc. -- where large/numerous stores exist close to residential streets, and this coexistence is not viewed as harmful.  On the contrary, residents seem to appreciate having an easy access to those shopping centers.

The bottom line is that we can’t expect to live in the city -- with all the conveniences and easy access to everything that people need -- and have roads with light traffic.  Any city, by definition, needs a mixture of uses (not just residential) -- and our zoning reflects that.  A-B is primarily residential, but keeping commercial uses alive, especially those that we locals can use too, is also vitally important.

To me, respecting zoning is key.  Everyone who truly cares about keeping traffic manageable (and I certainly count myself in that category), should be in favor of projects that fall within zoning — because the alternative, especially on large parcels, almost always means greater density AND greater traffic.

We in the community can agree or disagree on the pros and cons of the Lowe’s project — everyone has a right to their opinion -- but the fact that all (but one) of our elected officials felt free to publicly torpedo a lawful use by a property owner is mind-boggling (even to a liberal like me).

There were a number of instances when as a community activist I was trying, in vain, to get those same officials to oppose greedy developments that EXCEEDED zoning — but in this case, they were moved to effectively gang up on an owner who just wants to put long un-used, commercially-zoned land that he owns to productive use.

If it was New Balance, with its deep pockets, pushing for, let’s say, a fat 12-story building and a 600-car garage — way above zoning — somehow I can’t picture any officials having a problem with that.  What’s wrong with that picture?

This is about a principle.  Imagine the following hypothetical situation: you are the owner of a parcel of land on a street zoned for 3-families, and you wish to build a 3-family.  The owner of the adjacent property doesn’t like it because he would like to combine the parcels and build an apartment building on your land.  So he calls a neighborhood meeting to turn everyone against you, and then the elected officials jump on the bandwagon and are determined to create problems for you in City Hall.  Would anyone like to be an object of such politics?  Would you consider it fair?  I doubt it.

The writer of the pro-Lowe’s letter has nailed it down -- especially at the end.
 

Wicked Local Allston <http://www.wickedlocal.com/allston>
Posted May 13, 2010 @ 04:20 PM
 
Allston-Brighton —
 
To the editor:

“I welcome a Lowe’s store to the city of Boston,” Sen. Steven Tolman told us recently in these pages, “however [the Guest Street] location is not appropriate.”

Sen. Tolman is quite right to support the opening of a Lowe’s store in Boston. A Lowe’s store is projected to create 175 new jobs, new tax revenue and sorely needed economic development in a time of economic hardship.

In fact, I have a hard time thinking of any legitimate reason to oppose the development plans that Lowe’s has proposed. Sen. Tolman has found a reason, though — traffic.

Sen. Tolman warns us that a Lowe’s store would “make traffic intolerable every single day for many years to come.”

He enumerates for us the number of additional car trips the Lowe’s store would create, citing Lowe’s own Project Impact report. 

But, strangely, he dismisses out of hand the traffic improvements Lowe’s has proposed to remedy congestion, stating “the numbers do not add up.” He backs this up by stating that the number of deliveries has been unchanged from earlier proposals, and that the number of parking spots has increased slightly.

While both of these statements are true, neither is among the traffic improvements Lowe’s has proposed.

Sen. Tolman is particularly concerned that “all of the added traffic from this store will be on Market Street and North Beacon Street, already overburdened and critical roads.”

Yet, much of the traffic on these roads is shoppers passing through to Watertown, taking their money outside of the city. 

As a state senator representing Watertown in addition to parts of Boston, Sen. Tolman must advocate for the interests of Watertown residents and businesses. We, as Boston residents, need not.

For the past dozen years, I have lived in Brighton. During that time, I have had to travel out of Allston-Brighton for much of my shopping. There is a severe paucity of retailers in Allston-Brighton. We don’t need a Lowe’s somewhere else in Boston. It wouldn’t help us in Dorchester. We need economic development right here in our neighborhood.

Allston-Brighton must become a place where we cannot merely live, but work and shop as well.

I recently spoke with my friend, Yolanda. She lives with her husband and their two children just a few blocks from the proposed site. Her husband has been out of work for some time, and she’s been working extra hours and odd jobs trying to make ends meet.

She’s heard about Lowe’s development plans and expressed her hopes that her husband might land one of the new jobs. A job he could walk to — a job that might allow her to work a little less, to spend more time with her young family.

“Why,” she asked me, “would anyone want to stop this?”

I explained to her that the good senator was concerned about an increase in traffic.

“I’ll take the traffic,” she said. “Please just give us the jobs.”

I was unable to attend the recent community meeting where this was discussed. Between work and being a parent, weekday meetings at dinnertime are not a realistic possibility. But I want to be sure to have my say, and to express the views I’ve heard echoed by many of the Brighton families with whom I’ve spoken.

What we expect from our politicians is not opposition to new jobs and new sources of city revenue. What we expect from our politicians is that they work hard so that the city’s infrastructure is adapted and upgraded to support commerce. Government should focus on providing basic infrastructure, like sufficiently redundant water supplies, instead of meddling where it has no right.

Lowe’s has a contract negotiated in good faith to develop the land. Opposition only became manifest when New Balance, which does not own the land and, in fact, passed on an opportunity to lease the land, came up with its own development plans and enlisted supporters in government to push forward its plan.

Blocking the Lowe’s plan would represent an outrageous abuse of power, with government officials pursuing confiscatory policies, diminishing the value of the land to its lawful owner, transferring his wealth to the New Balance Corporation and robbing the community they are supposed to be serving of jobs, economic development, and shopping convenience.

This cannot be allowed to stand; our politicians are acting counter to our best interests and desires.

That’s why I’m taking this evening between Little League game nights and after a long day of chaperoning a school trip to write this. So that the people of Boston, our government leadership, and the Boston Redevelopment Authority can finally know what the majority of Brighton residents want.

We want jobs.

We want local economic development.

We want Lowe’s.

Neal Shanske

Brighton


                
    
Loading commenting interface...
Comments (2)

  
TGill

    
It is nice to see a well written letter. Right or wrong Neal makes a lot of sense.  
I wonder if Sen. Tolman will respond?
  
  
Buggvillage
  
    
I find it interesting that nobody wrote in to oppose the writer. I also want to know why Tolman did not respond.
  

[colleen salmon]

I would really like to see a Lowes go into that location.  I think it would be an asset to the community. --- On Sun, 5/16/10, johnath <joh...@comcast.net> wrote:

[*]

Mr. Sahnske,
With all due respect how do you know that the majority of folks in
Brighton (and Allston) want a Lowes? I do not think it's fair to make
assumptions concerning the views for all the folks in A/B. As a matter
of fact many folks I've had conversations with concerning this subject
do not want a Lowes in the area, and believe it will not provide the
most benefit for the area and it's residents.

[Eva Webster]

On 5/17/10 11:40 AM, "*" <ab_resi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Mr. Sahnske,
> With all due respect how do you know that the majority of folks in
> Brighton (and Allston) want a Lowes? I do not think it's fair to make
> assumptions concerning the views for all the folks in A/B. As a matter
> of fact many folks I've had conversations with concerning this subject
> do not want a Lowes in the area, and believe it will not provide the
> most benefit for the area and it's residents.

Development decision are to be made based on what zoning and planning call
for (and that is a function of a larger context and regional needs) -- not
to accommodate local popular demand or (or disapproval).

Popular sentiments should only come into consideration when the community
supports or opposes zoning variances (and that is not the case with Lowe's).

If planning and zoning were subject to a democratic process, which community
do you think would welcome recycling junkyards, waste processing facilities,
large transportation depots, warehouses, industrial sites, and such?

[David Evans]

Eva,
We have no planning here.
We do have zoning and it's ignored.
I have not heard BTD state that the traffic plan will work.
Location, location, location?
Traffic, traffic, traffic.
This is a neighborhood, not an urban mall.
If you really want a Lowes, I offer the former cinema site in Cleveland
Circle. Some of the streets even have two lanes, which cannot be said for
Market or North Beracon Streets.
dge

[nan evans]

The following is my letter to Jay Rourke describing why I oppose a
Lowe's in that location.


Dear Mr Rourke:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed Lowes. I
have two concerns about the project.

My first concern arises from the traffic problems. I have long observed
the traffic on North Beacon Street. We’ve lived on Guilford Street for
over thirty years. In order to drive anywhere, we must turn onto North
Beacon Street. This has become increasingly difficult in the past few
years, particularly during rush hour. Simply getting onto North Beacon
Street often requires the aggressive driving skills for which Boston
drivers are frequently criticized.

I do not drive that often. I work downtown and most often use public
transportation to commute to my office. Taking the 64 bus to Central
Square is the faster route for me to get to work. Again, in the past few
years I have observed an increase in the traffic on North Beacon Street.
This is particularly true on the commute home. It is frequently faster
for me to walk from Union Square than to remain on the bus to the Saunders
Street stop.

Although I personally prefer shopping at smaller neighborhood stores, I
fully recognize the advantages of big box stores and confess to utilizing
them. And I understand that having chosen to live in the city, I must
accept a certain level of inconvenient and unpleasant traffic. But I
sincerely believe that the traffic generated by the proposed Lowes would
contribute to the destruction of what is a well-established and
comfortable neighborhood

My second concern comes from what appears to be a lack of consideration of
the most effective use for the space for creating job opportunities in
Allston/Brighton and surrounding communities. A box store such as Lowes
creates a number of comparatively low paying, dead end jobs. This does
not add a substantial benefit to the community.

I am not a planner – that is the role of the BRA. But I have not seen any
attempt to examine what uses of the space would best serve the needs of
Allston/Brighton. Have there been any overall economic development plans?
Has there been thought given to this issue? How does the Lowes proposal
compare with that of New Balance? Has there been input from the Main
Streets program? From city, state and private job development agencies?

I believe that both of my concerns are issues that the BRA consider before
giving final approval to any project on that space.

Very truly yours,




Nan Evans

--
Law Office of Nan Evans
(617) 556-8282

[johnath]

*, I would imagine that it depends on your friends. If you asked
Alex, he would be on your side.
If you asked the old timers at the Coffee club, they would be on Mr.
Sahnske's side.
John

[*]

"Development decision are to be made based on what zoning and planning
call

or (and that is a function of a larger context and regional needs) --
not
to accommodate local popular demand or (or disapproval)."

The key word is "planning" which incorporates the effects on the local
community. It also weighs in on the benefits or negative results of
such plans.

"Popular sentiments should only come into consideration when the
community
supports or opposes zoning variances (and that is not the case with
Lowe's). "

This is not about the popular sentiment. The point was that Mr Sahnske
cannot make the assumption that the majority of folks are for (or
against) such a proposal.

"If planning and zoning were subject to a democratic process, which
community
do you think would welcome recycling junkyards, waste processing
facilities,
large transportation depots, warehouses, industrial sites, and such? "

If this were the underlying rule of thought then why bother having any
form of community meetings, organizations, or groups? Why even bother
having any form of community input, or meeting with local
representatives? Every community is different, and that calls for
different sets of zoning and planning. When the aforementioned
examples you give effect the community in a negative manner should
they then be challenged.






On May 17, 4:15 pm, Eva Webster <evawebs...@comcast.net> wrote:

[johnath]

David, The Cleveland Circle site is not big enough.
John

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en

[johnath]

The jobs at the big box stores are dead end low paying jobs if that is
what you want them to be. A person without any skills could make a
career working at Lowe's if they wanted to. There are plenty of
opportunities to advance.
Plus there are a lot of people in Allston and Brighton who could use
these jobs.
John Thompson

> On 5/17/10, David Evans <d...@sailonset.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Eva,
> > We have no planning here.
> > We do have zoning and it's ignored.
> > I have not heard BTD state that the traffic plan will work.
> > Location, location, location?
> > Traffic, traffic, traffic.
> > This is a neighborhood, not an urban mall.
> > If you really want a Lowes, I offer the former cinema site in Cleveland
> > Circle. Some of the streets even have two lanes, which cannot be said for
> > Market or North Beracon Streets.
> > dge
>

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AllstonBrighton2006?hl=en

[nan evans]

I have nothing against development in that space - I would like to see
it. I do think that traffic concerns need to be addressed; both N.
Beacon St. and Market St. are already overloaded.

And I think that a more mixed use could create better and more varied
jobs. I am an employment lawyer and have had a number of clients who
work at big box stores. There are some opportunities for advancement,
but most of the time, people do not rise through the ranks to the real
higher level jobs.

I'll gladly support a plan that seriously considers both the existing
traffic problems and job creation. Again, as an employment lawyer, I
have way too many clients on unemployment who can't find jobs.

Nan Evans

[johnath]

What do you mean by real higher level jobs?
John

On May 20, 12:06 pm, nan evans <nanevans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have nothing against development in that space - I would like to see
> it.  I do think that traffic concerns need to be addressed; both N.
> Beacon St. and Market St. are already overloaded.
>
> And I think that a more mixed use could create better and more varied
> jobs.  I am an employment lawyer and have had a number of clients who
> work at big box stores.  There are some opportunities for advancement,
> but most of the time, people do not rise through the ranks to the real
> higher level jobs.
>
> I'll gladly support a plan that seriously considers both the existing
> traffic problems and job creation.  Again, as an employment lawyer, I
> have way too many clients on unemployment who can't find jobs.
>
> Nan Evans
>

[wmamigotree]

Dead end jobs ? How elitist !    Entry level employment for most is used as a learning tool for those not able to receive a degree or technical schooling. An entry level job for many of the above becomes the the inspiration, or awakening of the need of experience, to advance in life.With desire and ambition and the added,good/bad, experience of an entry level job many people climb to a higher level. No job is dead end if it is a small step up the ladder.

Bill Martin

[wmamigotree]

please explain

On May 20, 2010, at 1:30:05 PM, johnath <joh...@comcast.net> wrote:

[nan evans]

I will. You make good point with which I agree completely. Am at
work right now, so I may not be able to reply till tomorrow.