of Article 34 as it stands.
Public Transportation
* While the bill is merely called "MBTA communities bill" based on a catchment area, proponents are arguing for public transportation. Lexington today has *no effective public transportation*.
I preferentially ride the bus & subway, and I find that it takes me 90 minutes to commute in the AM and often much more in the evening *or* one has to use Uber or get a ride from Alewife.
Data:
* Yesterday I walked to the Park Street MBTA leaving at 640pm, I arrived at 650pm, I got a train at 658pm, and I arrived at Alewife where I had to wait 44 minutes for a bus. Once the bus took me to Lexington Center I walked home, arriving at a few minutes before 9pm. Roughly 2 hours and 15 minutes door to door, and that was leaving Boston at 640pm.
* On other days where I have to stay later for work, I find myself arriving at Alewife after the last bus has left and either need an uber or family member to pick me up.
* There is no bus service in the late evening
* There is no bus service on Sundays
* MBTA buses do not consistently traverse up Bedford Street from Lexington Center to Bedford, so bus stops displayed in town meeting are not frequently visited by buses.
* When I left town meeting on Monday, I did not see any town meeting member take public transportation! Everyone walked, biked, or (in most cases) drove home.
Conclusion: we have potential for public transit, but we do not have it.
While proponents say "build and they will come" I beg to differ. The first generation occupying any housing built along this corridor will need to have vehicles.
The only reason I can ride public transit today is that I am taking no household responsibilities on a day. I certainly cannot get to the grocery store after arriving home, as if there were one accessible by public transit. Households will require cars to deal with the reality of running a household; and low and moderate income workers cannot live in most of this housing and reliably transit to a workplace.
While we discuss teachers living in Lexington, there is no public transit which would let a teacher live in the proposed housing and take transit to a Lexington public school.
Article 34 by itself supports private cars and uber, not public transportation nor walkable development.
Demographics: At town meeting, it was claimed that Lexington is less diverse than in previous generations.
The data is entirely different from what is claimed. Lexington is among the most diverse *towns* in Massachusetts, and continues to increase in diversity. As has been pointed out, we could have greater economic diversity, but I think Article 34 will lead to gentrification not greater diversity and set back efforts at increasing diversity.
Among less discussed types of diversity, an important area of focus should be the lack of 21-34 year olds living in Lexington. If Lexington wants to avoid being strictly a bedroom community it needs to offer something for younger residents. Lexington fails to do this today on two grounds: (a) there is no viable public transportation to locations where young people congregate across all hours, and (b) Lexington does not itself have a variety of venues (clubs, bars, entertainment) which would be attractive to a younger population. Article 34 will make this problem much worse as it builds more houses for affluent, car owning families and displaces other uses of land.
Housing in the US will be undergoing a great transition this next decade, and this will impact the distribution of future housing. Adding 20% more housing to the Boston area is not going to change the area's climate nor the fact that other areas of the country are much less expensive to live in.
Remote work: today I lead a team where no direct report lives in the same city as one another. They are located in Athens (Gr), Barcelona, Tampa, Miami, Chicago, Richmond, and the Bay area.
Ten years ago I worked for a company where when a valued employee moved away from the Boston area due to spousal relocation they were fired. Consistently. Because co-working was expected.
But companies have discovered that employees can be paid less if they are hired outside Boston, NY, and the Bay area, and those areas are not going to command the salaries they once did. The remote macroeconomic work trends will continue, and Lexington's response to the MBTA Communities Bill will not change these trends. Communities will need to survive on their own offerings (vital downtowns, walkable services) as much as their relation to a larger employment market. If Lexington were not proximate to universities and biotech (largely in person) the town would be facing a greater threat than it does. We need to zone Lexington to be robust to changing macroeconomic trends, not only the pre-pandemic trends.
ChatGPT & AI: emerging technologies will quickly change the way that knowledge workers do their jobs, and that will further impact job functioning and location.
Rationales (second)
While eastern Massachusetts has a "housing crisis" the role that Lexington plays within the larger economic area is already defined - Lexington today is a bedroom community within the 128/95 belt, which has some industry and is known for outstanding schools. Lexington educates a disproportionate number of students and families with children outbid other potential occupants of housing in most cases.
Given the role Lexington plays, in a free-for-all zoning market, residences might outbid all other uses of land in Lexington. Lexington could become one giant bedroom, while neighboring communities with much lower tax rates can host the businesses. And affluent Lexington residents can get in their cars to drive to those businesses since no effective radial public transit exists across Lexington's neighbors on 128/95.
When the state leadership asks for more housing, it impacts each community differently. Lexington has a responsibility to ensure balanced development *within* Lexington, and should avoid becoming only a community for families with school attending children. We as town meeting members determine how we want Lexington to look in the future. While I find more housing attractive, I only do so in balance with other local commercial development and vibrancy.
If the Stop & Stop center, Walgreens, etc., were to be replaced with housing I think we would soon regret it. Imagine also losing businesses at the intersections along Marrett Road. Lexington needs to have vital commercial zoning to be a vibrant, walkable community. We have insufficient local services today to provide that vibrancy.
We need commercial revenues to pay for a new high school (likely ~$600 million, not $400 million), helping offset what will continue to be among the highest tax rates in Massachusetts. We need *expanded* commercial facilities to offer vibrancy to our town. It is not enough to have a single floor of businesses in a few areas of town. We need to support retail & restaurants, grocery stores and small shops, on the major roads in Lexington and support housing models in mixed-use facilities along those corridors.
Article 34 puts at risk areas for viable commercial development, and risks allowing homes to displace local services and businesses. More homes with affluent school-attending children will cause the schools to burst at their seams and undermine diversity, vibrancy and walkability.
Respectfully send Article 34 back for further work. We saw great work and increased engagement as town meeting came into session, and we should capitalize on those efforts this summer and into the fall. The Amendment working group put together a viable proposal, and I winced to see the selected zones criticized as NIMBY. Lexington needs thoughtful development, and we should avoid letting common ideas around inclusionary development undermine a rationale and thoughtful approaches to zoning. We need to respect each others' voices in the process for how we promote Lexington's development and its place in the larger economy.
Support mixed use development, walkability, and actual public transportation.
Support inclusionary housing, not simply more housing.
Do not support a proposal which may displace local businesses and services, simply adding more residences to the tax base.
Sincerely,
Mark Andersen
Precinct 9
