Response to Mr Mehr re: MBTA development costs

[Jay Luker]

I’m assuming you all received an email from Patrick Mehr today. It was titled “Impact of MBTA developments on our future School budgets and High School enrollments” and linked to a google spreadsheet analysis. Feels a little awkard to carry on a discussion this way, but OK.

Two things jump out at me that undercut any value Mr Mehr’s analysis might have: the count of acreage being considered, and the impact estimates on the school budget.

1) Any estimates that start with 227 as the total acreage are immediately invalid because a very significant portion of the parcels that make up that 227 are either unbuildable or have a near zero probability of being developed. You have to start by subtracting the following:

    - 9.6 acres for 201 Bedford, the DPW property 

    - 16 acres for 10 Maguire Road, a collection of 10+ commercial leases that would need to simultaneously expire or be bought out 

    - 11.34 acres for actual wetlands 

    - 11.75 acres for things like the fire station, the armory 

     - 6.7 acres for Lois Lane, which would require every individual condo owner to collectively agree to sell and relocate 

    - and so on

There’s more but already we’re at 175 acres, which is 75% of 227. So when Mr Mehr hypothesizes a 70% buildout, that would actually represent an almost 100% buildout. I’m not sure if this is a feature or a bug of the analysis, but IMO it undermines its usefulness.

2) Apologies if I’m reading the spreadsheet wrong, but it looks as if the impact on the school budget assumes a linear, per-student increase in cost, which is not the reality and I would actually expect Mr Mehr to know that (which is why I don’t 100% trust my interpretation here).

Additional confusing aspects: I have never understood where the figure 70% comes from. I also don’t understand why estimates are provided for both current density and 1.5x current density. Why not 2x current density? Why not 0.5x? The thought process here is opaque and the inputs seem arbitrary.

Everyone wants better estimates but we should be careful of overreacting and overcorrecting based on a year’s worth of proposals and panicked extrapolations. Proposals! Not a stick of housing has been built yet, I have to keep reminding people. A construction permit (which none of these projects actually have yet) doesn’t even guarantee anything gets built. If and when the financing for a project lines up (also not a given) it takes about five years to deliver a multi-family development.

Trying to predict this stuff is hard. Estimates in the Spring of 2023 suggested anywhere from 500 to 800 units over 10 years. This was too low. Other predictions I saw showed Lexington Center built up like a collection of Soviet apartment blocks. That hasn’t happened either. 

What if we had done a parcel-by-parcel analysis of development and density potential? Would it have predicted a collapse in the commercial lab space market, thereby making it more attractive for a developer to propose 312 homes at 17 Hartwell? Would it have known the congregation of Grace Chapel would hold a vote to sell their main office building on Militia Drive and enable a development of 319 homes? (This is a great location, BTW, so kudos to Grace Chapel.) Those two projects alone make up almost 2/3rds of the total proposed unit count. Can we call them outliers? 

The point is you can try in good faith to be rigorous and objective and still be wrong. What concerns me more is when people who are smart with spreadsheets but haven't done the homework start throwing around arbitrary numbers backed up by nothing, and then those figures become wedged in the conversation and treated as foundational data. Be skeptical, please.

—

Jay Luker, pct 1

[Mark Andersen]

Patrick has a number of scenarios in his spreadsheet.  Some might seem extreme.

However I think you would note that almost any scenario poses a challenge for operating budgets and school capacity.

IMHO worth seeing the big picture here, as this is not a specific forecast.

Thank you .

Mark Andersen, Ph.D., CFA

781-307-1944 (m)

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

https://mylocaltaxes.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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAFBHbNZ%2BqbU6Mgt%3Dwq72nJAL%3DOXxh3Qi_AeCV7WaJzAKyWsiDA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Yifang Gong]

It was interesting to hear planning board stated in the TM, that they could not predict. While over a year ago, when they proposed the rezoning, the estimation was 10%. It gives me an impression that anything is possible. 

I believe that either the PB gives a new estimation, or the town should form a task force to look at the situation. If the population doubles in 20 years, then we will need a second high school. While we still have 10 years mortgage to pay for the current one. Hopefully, it will not happen.

Yifang Gong, P1 

Get Outlook for Android

---

From: lex...@googlegroups.com <lex...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Mark Andersen <markan...@alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2024 1:56:59 PM
To: Jay Luker <jay....@gmail.com>
Cc: LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Response to Mr Mehr re: MBTA development costs

 

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAHTwabH-REDUUte3oDdbP7%3DMJaACKRrkcPK8EqS4g06xB1mAww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Matt]

A large proportion of the arguments I've heard on this topic tend to cluster at either end of the spectrum, to the effect of:

• Our current MBTA rezoning will explode the schools and cripple town services.  We will become the City of Lexington, therefore: shut it down.
  
• Analyzing the potential impacts of our MBTA rezoning is too hard and predictions are often wrong, so don't bother.  The town will figure something out years from now once units are occupied, therefore: let it ride as-is.
  

Hyperbole aside, while it is true that the Town cannot make zoning decisions based on the potential familial status of future occupants, that doesn't mean that any attempt to understand various trends and plan for the future is a de facto violation of the Fair Housing Act and must be precluded.  More broadly than school population issues, I think what many residents are yearning for is an objective and detailed analysis of the MBTA-related issues at hand, so that the Town can make informed data-driven decisions as this evolves.

The town has previously engaged consultants to model several MBTA project scenarios and development pro forma to understand the economic feasibility of minimum affordable housing requirements, which you can find here and here.  The town could similarly engage consultants to more fully understand the development potential of rezoned parcels and model buildout scenarios under a variety of data-driven assumptions.  This would fill some of the information void that we currently find ourselves in.  

Very respectfully,

Matt Daggett

Precinct 2

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAHTwabH-REDUUte3oDdbP7%3DMJaACKRrkcPK8EqS4g06xB1mAww%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steven Kaufman]

Matt’s exactly right. The town needs to dig in and forecast growth. Don't see that forecast happening even though it has a massive planning impact. Perhaps because Lexington housing was so static for so long, the town doesn't do this.  Maybe we should put up a citizen’ article on next TM allocating resources to an annual town population and school population demographic growth forecast based on housing changes. If this forecast exists and is updated can someone point to it?

-Steve

On Nov 16, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Matt <ma...@mattdaggett.org> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/2e29721e-4324-4b6a-af1e-a254e9cc6c32%40app.fastmail.com.

[Rod Cole]

All,

I mentioned this on another thread, but to Matt’s point and Jay’s point, it would be good for the town to engage actual professionals with some experience to do a parcel by parcel analysis. It would have to be probabilistic, one can assess parcels into low, medium, high likelihood of being developed in the next ten years or something similar. It might come up with low, medium, high estimates for the next 10 years or 20 years. It likely won’t be dead accurate, but it would likely be helpful, sensible, unbiased, based in reality. 

We just don’t know if developers picked off the few easy parcels and then this slows greatly, or this pace will continue because there are many more easy to build parcels.

And as noted, we don’t even know how many of these will ever be built. It would be worth understanding the historical rate of completion. That could be part of the study. 

Given that information the Enrollment Working Group working with the School Department could then assess school impact. 

Another approach which has been successful for us is an appointed Ad Hoc Committee of citizens with strong data analysis skills, housing development knowledge, known to do solid work, willing to do a deep dive into this topic. 

This is important and deserves more than a trivially simple spreadsheet model. 

Rod Cole

Precinct 9

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 16, 2024, at 3:57 PM, Matt <ma...@mattdaggett.org> wrote:



To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/2e29721e-4324-4b6a-af1e-a254e9cc6c32%40app.fastmail.com.

[Tom Shiple]

Trying to estimate the number of new housing units is one thing, but trying to estimate future school enrollment is another level beyond that. Just to estimate future enrollment coming from new multifamily housing requires predicting which parcels will get built, at what density, with which bedroom configurations, and rental versus ownership. (See this report for some of the variables and ranges of data.) But that only gets us halfway there, because we also need to estimate future enrollment from the existing housing stock and whatever new housing will be built outside of the MBTA districts. It’s the sum of enrollment from new MFH and enrollment from everything else that gives us a total enrollment projection.  We see from the data that enrollment is declining at lower grade levels - it may be that in the long run, the MFH enrollment is what keeps our overall enrollment stable.

I’m not suggesting we should not try to model all these things, just that it’s difficult and we will end up with very large ranges in our estimates.  As Rod suggested, I think it's hard to know if we are seeing pent up demand being met from the introduction of by-right zoning, or if this growth will be sustained.

I’m trying to imagine how our predecessors reacted to big changes in enrollment. I looked through some old Annual Town Reports in the archives. In 1950 the total school enrollment was 2813. In just 10 years, in 1960, it was 6280, a 2.2X increase. By 1970 it was 9459, a 50% increase over 1960.  Here is a table from the 1960 report: 

Imagine if Town leaders had reacted to this growth by severely restricting zoning so that few new houses could be built. If they had, then my guess is that most of us would not be living here today because we are living in houses built during this timeframe. They must’ve had the attitude to face the future and find solutions to deal with this huge growth.

As a side note, in the 20 years following 1970 the school enrollment dropped more than 50% to 4522. That must have been gut wrenching.

In summary, I think it's a good idea to bring some professional analysis to bear, but I think it's premature to be thinking about enacting zoning restrictions.

Tom Shiple 

Precinct 9

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/5A0C3FA4-CD62-458C-9A05-A3856EA54CDE%40comcast.net.

[Dawn McKenna]

I am not a mathematician but I do pay attention and can do math. Here are some facts:

1. According to numbers certified by the MA Office of Housing and Livable Communities in July 2024, Lexington had 12,310 existing units.

2. The same agency also certified that what Town Meeting voted allows 12,546 family unit capacity as of RIGHT.

3. None of this accounts for other zoning opportunities, such as the development that will take place on Lowell Street on town-owned land being sold that will be multi-family.

4. On 10/7 at the Select Board meeting the Planning Director indicated that 971 units are already in process. That is nearing 10% and we are barely 1 year into the 10-year projected growth. See report with that agenda.

5. Two of those projects 28 Meriam Street (8 units) and 89 Bedford Street (30 units) are under construction now. So building has already started with permits in place.

6. I know of up to another 1k units that will likely be submitted in the coming months.

7.  I was the Chair of the Selectmen at the time the Met State project was being developed. Years ago I  owned the largest real estate office in Lexington. It was this experience that helped me understand the staffing and financial impacts of large residential developments. In that case I was able to negotiate a large draw fund to level impacts from the state. Since these are by right we have no such opportunity and required by law.

8. Anyway you slice it, 2x units than we currently have in town, even if over  10+ years will lead to roughly double the students and a corresponding increase in operating expenses and staff. Staff tells us they are already feeling the needs. Can you imagine what that kind of growth will mean in reality? Are we ready for that rapid change?

9. It is time to discuss the impacts and consider whether changes in what was previously voted should be proposed. To that end my intent is to invite those who previously worked on the amendment to a discussion via zoom after Thanksgiving. If you were not part of that group and are interested in participating, please email me directly.

Thanks

Dawn

dawnforl...@yahoo.com 

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer

[Jay Luker]

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 7:04 PM 'Dawn McKenna' via LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

2. The same agency also certified that what Town Meeting voted allows 12,546 family unit capacity as of RIGHT.

This is another case of a number being used without the necessary context. EOHLC has a compliance worksheet that takes acreage as an input and provides a unit capacity number as an output. It’s a compliance calculation, not a real life buildout estimate. It takes the gross buildable area of the submitted parcels, treating every square foot equally, and then divides the total by 1000. I’m also not a mathematician, but even I could have come up with a formula that simple. It ignores the attributes of the parcels that would determine redevelopment potential, such as size constraints, parking requirements, likelihood of being sold, value of existing structures, existing commercial leases, and so on. It’s not useful for understanding what’s going to happen going forward.

—

Jay Luker, pct 1

[Jay Luker]

Hi Rod,

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:06 PM Rod Cole <ro...@comcast.net> wrote:

Another approach which has been successful for us is an appointed Ad Hoc Committee of citizens with strong data analysis skills, housing development knowledge, known to do solid work, willing to do a deep dive into this topic. 

This was action item #7 in the Select Board’s most recent report.

I can’t say if that’s better than hiring professionals or not. Doesn’t seem like a terrible idea, but could it be assembled in time to produce any reassurance before spring town meeting? My concern is that attempts at correction are going to be premature, unwarranted and/or mis-calibrated. Multi-family housing is being built and some people seem to interpret that as we didn’t set the knobs and levers correctly.

—

Jay Luker, pct 1

[Rod Cole]

Hi Jay,

I don’t really have an opinion on professional or committee of citizens. It largely depends on whether such professionals exist. Or interested citizens. 

We put out an RFP for someone to forecast enrollments some years back. What was being done by the school department at that time was not adequate. A group of citizens (I was one, and had just been Chair of the School Committee) was asked to review the submissions for the Superintendent (Paul Ash). 

We were not impressed with the proposals. 

We were all data analysts and statistical modelers and such. We said it would be better to just have us do it. That work became the basis for what we still do, though it’s been modified a bit over time. The town received a better product and we saved the town quite a bit of money. 

The town has successfully employed citizens in this way on many other topics. The town is packed with talented people. So I think it could work. 

All that said, there may be firms better equipped and quicker. 

Regardless, work would not start in earnest until January at best, only a glimmer of results would be ready by Spring TM if at all. 

I agree with you Spring TM is premature for action. I think taking a close look is a good idea. But that takes time. Then deciding what, if anything, should be done will take time. Personally I would not vote on changing anything until we understand, really understand, the problem, if any, we want to fix. And we have had time to consider any changes. 

Rod Cole

Precinct 9

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 16, 2024, at 8:45 PM, Jay Luker <jay....@gmail.com> wrote:



Hi Rod,

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 5:06 PM Rod Cole <ro...@comcast.net> wrote:

Another approach which has been successful for us is an appointed Ad Hoc Committee of citizens with strong data analysis skills, housing development knowledge, known to do solid work, willing to do a deep dive into this topic. 

This was action item #7 in the Select Board’s most recent report.

<BC1D423C-7A50-4DB5-A135-F2C3F86C9053.jpeg>

I can’t say if that’s better than hiring professionals or not. Doesn’t seem like a terrible idea, but could it be assembled in time to produce any reassurance before spring town meeting? My concern is that attempts at correction are going to be premature, unwarranted and/or mis-calibrated. Multi-family housing is being built and some people seem to interpret that as we didn’t set the knobs and levers correctly.

—

Jay Luker, pct 1

--

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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAFBHbNZ%3Doi-HKOGr8xsOmRNi8gEHrafmhsU5qE%2B_McLqDJBXPQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Lin Jensen]

Thank you all for the discussion. 

As potential next steps and their timings are being discussed, I would like to point out a few relevant facts/factors for us to consider:

1) The MBTA Community is only one of the two recently passed by-right multifamily zoning bylaws. To summarize, they are: 

• The MBTA Community, on the selected 227 acres (Examples are 988 units being proposed on 331 Concord Ave, 89 Bedford St, 231 Bedford St, 5-7 Piper Rd, 17 Hartwell Ave, 217-241 Massachusetts Ave, 3,4,5 Militia Dr, 185, 187, 189 Bedford St)
• The Special Residential Developments, on any lots in town that meet the minimum dimension requirements (the Meriam/Edgewood 10-unit development is an example, there may be other ones I am not aware of)

2) As the state has a housing crisis, and Lexington is one of the desirable places to live, the likelihood of these proposals, which have consumed all parties involved a good amount of time, effort and money, will yield no actual built units is not extremely high. The fact that large buildings take time to get constructed and occupied, is not proof that it might not happen. 

3) Based on a recent state mandate, it takes and has taken a simple majority (50+%) to pass multifamily zoning bylaws, but will require supermajority (2/3) to reverse or amend them if the change is more restrictive. 

4) There are mechanisms for property owners and developers to lock in (freeze/ get grandfathered in) the existing, more favorable zoning bylaws, even if there are no specific proposals yet on the horizon. One common tactic is to submit a definitive by-right subdivision plan regardless of any actual intention to build on it, thus legally freeze the zoning for eight years from the time such a plan is approved. Therefore, even if the zoning were to be amended in any way in March 2025, property owners and developers have the possibility to build based on the existing zoning bylaw until 2033.

5) Of all of the towns and cities in Massachusetts, I am not aware of any, other than Lexington, that has passed an MBTA Community zoning on much more acreage than the state requirement, or anywhere near by a factor of 4, with a capacity to double the existing dwelling units. To put things in perspective, the State's MBTA Community Act aims for a 10% increase in dwelling units, which we are close to achieving a year later. 

Best regards,

Lin Jensen, TMM P8

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/C135558E-F625-45FC-893B-36BEC61EABC8%40comcast.net.