Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

161 views
Skip to first unread message

Alex Tsouvalas

unread,
Mar 30, 2024, 5:42:25 PM3/30/24
to lex...@googlegroups.com

Dear Colleagues,

 

I am voting NO on Article 25, the $2,575,000 renovation of the Pine Meadows Clubhouse at the Town owned golf course and here is why: We need to pause and reevaluate this expenditure and property, so we can make a more informed decision.

 

I recognize the value our community places in recreation, which I support. I also recognize the golf course generates revenue to support our recreation programs in Lexington. And finally, I am pleased that this clubhouse project has sustainability and ADA compliance in the design. However, my fundamental question (one that I don’t believe has been asked during the rush to renovate this building) is the following: Is golf the best use of this town- owned property?

 

By my rough estimation, Pine Meadows is about a 60-acre gem of town-owned, citizen owned, property. Is golf truly the best use of this land? I have nothing against golf, but I question what percent of our population benefits from this space? I know it generates revenue, but if we borrow and spend this much money to renovate the clubhouse, it will take at least five to six years to earn that back, so the income to the recreation department is no longer truly there for years. So, I respectfully ask, should the town be in the business of running a business?  If this were a private business, I would like to see the business plan taken to a bank that asks for a $2,575,000 loan. What would the P&L statement look like? How is the business going to generate enough revenue to offset the principal and interest of a loan of this size and make a profit? Afterall this is a business, right? Or are we all in agreement that we as citizens are heavily subsidizing a golf business that a very specific and I suspect, small percentage of folks, benefit from.

 

In addition, there is a significant environmental cost to golf course operation, from the enormous use of irrigation to the substantial pesticide and chemicals use for all those lawns. The site even has an underground gasoline tank to fuel all the lawn mowing equipment.

 

I can’t help but imagine there could be many other creative and interesting ways we might maximize the use of this land to benefit the greatest number of residents, while also generating income to support recreation. As you know, Lexington has a significant deficit in rectangle fields. These types of fields also generate income as private community organizations lease fields for their sports. Perhaps a driving range would be a nice use of the land. Or even a three-hole course. With over 60-acres, we could sell a parcel to a developer for senior living and use that revenue to defray some of the upcoming cost of the new high school. Knowing the ingenuity and enthusiasm of our citizenry, how exciting it would be to ask the town this question: what indeed is the best use of this property? A mix of recreation, conservation, parks and trails, and even some development?

 

If we borrow and spend $2.6 million now, we are missing out in a once in a generation opportunity to ask this question. If we can think outside the box a bit, and really contemplate how best to use this amazing and rare resource, something incredible could happen. Or we can end up operating a highly subsidized nine-hole golf course that might not be the ‘cash cow” we think it is. An opportunity is lost if we don’t at least try to find out.

 

In summation, if we pause on approving these funds, take the time to study our options, and seek out citizenship input, we can be sure we are acting in the best interest of Lexington. If we ultimately determine golf is indeed the best use of this land, then I would support and vote to renovate the clubhouse. I am not suggesting the building isn’t in need to renovation. I am simply asking that we need to gather more information before we approve an expenditure of this size. Personally, I think Lexington can do better with this treasure of land.  

 

Thank you.

Alex J Tsouvalas

Precinct 5

 

 

 

ARTICLE 25 MOTION:

PINE MEADOWS CLUBHOUSE RENOVATION

That the Town appropriate $2,575,000 for the renovation of the Pine Meadows Clubhouse building, including design, engineering, architectural services, construction, purchase and installation of original equipment, including photovoltaic panels, furnishings, site improvements, and all costs incidental or related thereto, and that to meet this appropriation the Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, be authorized to borrow $2,575,000 under M.G.L. Chapter 44, Section 7, or any other enabling authority.

 

 

-- 

Alex J. Tsouvalas

Town Meeting – Precinct 5

al...@tsouvalas.com

alex.ts...@lexingtontmma.org

(508) 397-5748

 

Avram Baskin

unread,
Mar 30, 2024, 7:05:15 PM3/30/24
to Alex Tsouvalas, lex...@googlegroups.com
I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote.

In the past I asked the recreation staff how many Lexington residents make use of the golf course.  The only data they have is the number of rounds of golf that are played.

On Mar 30, 2024, at 5:42 PM, Alex Tsouvalas <al...@tsouvalas.com> wrote:

Dear Colleagues,
 
I am voting NO on Article 25, the $2,575,000 renovation of the Pine Meadows Clubhouse at the Town owned golf course and here is why: We need to pause and reevaluate this expenditure and property, so we can make a more informed decision. 
 
I recognize the value our community places in recreation, which I support. I also recognize the golf course generates revenue to support our recreation programs in Lexington. And finally, I am pleased that this clubhouse project has sustainability and ADA compliance in the design. However, my fundamental question (one that I don’t believe has been asked during the rush to renovate this building) is the following: Is golf the best use of this town- owned property?
 
By my rough estimation, Pine Meadows is about a 60-acre gem of town-owned, citizen owned, property. Is golf truly the best use of this land? I have nothing against golf, but I question what percent of our population benefits from this space? I know it generates revenue, but if we borrow and spend this much money to renovate the clubhouse, it will take at least five to six years to earn that back, so the income to the recreation department is no longer truly there for years. So, I respectfully ask, should the town be in the business of running a business?  If this were a private business, I would like to see the business plan taken to a bank that asks for a $2,575,000 loan. What would the P&L statement look like? How is the business going to generate enough revenue to offset the principal and interest of a loan of this size and make a profit? Afterall this is a business, right? Or are we all in agreement that we as citizens areheavily subsidizing a golf business that a very specific and I suspect, small percentage of folks, benefit from.
 
In addition, there is a significant environmental cost to golf course operation, from the enormous use of irrigation to the substantial pesticide and chemicals use for all those lawns. The site even has an underground gasoline tank to fuel all the lawn mowing equipment. 
 
I can’t help but imagine there could be many other creative and interesting ways we might maximize the use of this land to benefit the greatest number of residents, while also generating income to support recreation. As you know, Lexington has a significant deficit in rectangle fields. These types of fields also generate income as private community organizations lease fields for their sports. Perhaps a driving range would be a nice use of the land. Or even a three-hole course. With over 60-acres, we could sell a parcel to a developer for senior living and use that revenue to defray some of the upcoming cost of the new high school. Knowing the ingenuity and enthusiasm of our citizenry, how exciting it would be to ask the town this question: what indeed is the best use of this property? A mix of recreation, conservation, parks and trails, and even some development?
 
If we borrow and spend $2.6 million now, we are missing out in a once in a generation opportunity to ask this question. If we can think outside the box a bit, and really contemplate how best to use this amazing and rare resource, something incredible could happen. Or we can end up operating a highly subsidized nine-hole golf course that might not be the ‘cash cow” we think it is. An opportunity is lost if we don’t at least try to find out.
 
In summation, if we pause on approving these funds, take the time to study our options, and seek out citizenship input, we can be sure we are acting in the best interest of Lexington. If we ultimately determine golf is indeed the best use of this land, then I would support and vote to renovate the clubhouse. I am not suggesting the building isn’t in need to renovation. I am simply asking that we need to gather more information before we approve an expenditure of this size. Personally, I think Lexington can do better with this treasure of land.  
 
Thank you.
Alex J Tsouvalas
Precinct 5
 
 
 

ARTICLE 25 MOTION: 

PINE MEADOWS CLUBHOUSE RENOVATION

That the Town appropriate $2,575,000 for the renovation of the Pine Meadows Clubhouse building, including design, engineering, architectural services, construction, purchase and installation of original equipment, including photovoltaic panels, furnishings, site improvements, and all costs incidental or related thereto, and that to meet this appropriation the Treasurer, with the approval of the Select Board, be authorized to borrow $2,575,000 under M.G.L. Chapter 44, Section 7, or any other enabling authority. 

 
 
-- 
Alex J. Tsouvalas
Town Meeting – Precinct 5
 

-- 
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/DM5PR20MB20874D2B779A0E24A31C52BAD1392%40DM5PR20MB2087.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

Avram Baskin
Be yourself, 
everyone else is already taken
Oscar Wilde

Donate to Support The Ukraine

er...@michelsonshoes.com

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 2:44:15 PM3/31/24
to Alex Tsouvalas, lex...@googlegroups.com

Hi Alex,

 

The finances of the Recreation Enterprise Fund operations can be found in the Brown Book page VII-9 and in the Appropriation Committee report page 18. I’ve included a table summarizing those numbers below.

 

Some highlights from the table and some background information:

  1. There are three program-based revenue sectors; Golf Course, Community Center programs, and Recreation programs (fields rentals, tennis courts & swimming pool fees, athletic programs).
  2. If you want to apply business metrics to the Operations revenues and costs then Recreation programs have a 16% profit margin, Golf has a 63% profit margin, and Community Center operates at a 53% loss. Cumulatively, Recreation operations has a $255,244 profit, or a 9% profit margin.
  3. The Enterprise Fund has a total of $902,952 of non-operational costs consisting of administration costs and indirect costs. Indirect cost are such things as employee benefits and support for administrative services provided by other Town departments.
  4. The total operational and non-operational costs exceed the program revenues by $647,708.
  5. Additional funding to balance this budget comes from the Recreation Enterprise Fund Retained Earnings and the Tax Levy.
  6. The Enterprise Fund increases its Retained Earnings when annual revenues are higher than projected.
  7. Golf Course revenues are projected very conservatively, and they can exceed projections, being the biggest contributor to Retained Earnings. Revenues will exceed projections in years when the weather allows for more golf play. Additionally, keeping the course conditions maintained to a high standard and having proper amenities factor into keeping the course attractive to area golfers. This is one revenue center where out-of- town players create profit to support other resident only programs in the Enterprise Fund.

 

Operations

Revenue

Expenses

Net

Recreation programs

   1,730,340

   1,497,709

    232,631

16%

Golf Course

   1,005,610

       618,000

    387,610

63%

Community Center programs

       330,000

       694,997

  (364,997)

-53%

Net Revenue (Loss) on Operations

   3,065,950

   2,810,706

    255,244

9%

Non-Operational Costs

Administration

       593,961

Indirect Costs (benefits, support by town staff)

       308,991

Total Non-Operational Cost

  (902,952)

Net Revenue (Loss) before additional support

  (647,708)

Additional Support to balance budget

Recreation Enterpise Fund Retained Earnings

       375,000

Tax Levy (for Community Center personnel)

       272,708

Total Additional Support

    647,708

 

 

I hope this gives you a better understanding of the interplay between the multiple “profit” centers of the Recreation Enterprise Fund.

 

Eric Michelson

Precinct 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 on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/DM5PR20MB20874D2B779A0E24A31C52BAD1392%40DM5PR20MB2087.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.


Virus-free.www.avg.com

Barbara K

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 2:55:41 PM3/31/24
to lex...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for writing this. Deciding to pursue other uses or multiple uses for the Pine Meadow 88 acres would take a lot of community conversations to resolve, but to me it is a conversation worth having.

One question I have is if we did eventually come to the point of view that a more limited form of golf recreation (such as a driving range and 3-hole course) made sense, would the rebuilt clubhouse still have value?  I believe Stone Meadow on Waltham Street has a clubhouse or similar structure on their 21-acre property.

Barbara Katzenberg
Precinct 2 TMM



--

boardmanliu

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 3:37:15 PM3/31/24
to LexTMMA
Eric - thank you for highlighting the revenue contribution of the golf course, and how it effectively funds other activites...it appears that it effectively offsets the costs of the community center.  This highlights for me my views on recreation in town - there are many recreation programs that serve a small proportion of the community (tennis, hiking trails, community center, outdoor fitness trail, baseball, skatepark to name a few) but for those members of the community, they are very beneficial.  i am supportive of investing in this recreation facility.  
Linda Boardman
Precinct 4

Avram Baskin

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 4:35:16 PM3/31/24
to Town Meeting Members
I’m going to vote “no” on this article, not because I’m opposed to the golf course or renovating the building, but because I think it would be worth while to spend a year doing community outreach to see if there is another use that residents would like to see some or all of the 60 acres used for.

Avram Baskin
Precinct 2

Be yourself, 
everyone else is already taken
Oscar Wilde

Donate to Support The Ukraine

On Mar 31, 2024, at 3:37 PM, boardmanliu <board...@gmail.com> wrote:

Eric - thank you for highlighting the revenue contribution of the golf course, and how it effectively funds other activites...it appears that it effectively offsets the costs of the community center.  This highlights for me my views on recreation in town - there are many recreation programs that serve a small proportion of the community (tennis, hiking trails, community center, outdoor fitness trail, baseball, skatepark to name a few) but for those members of the community, they are very beneficial.  i am supportive of investing in this recreation facility.  

Alex Tsouvalas

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 6:26:23 PM3/31/24
to er...@michelsonshoes.com, lex...@googlegroups.com

Thank you so much for sharing this useful information, Eric. As perhaps previously mentioned, I am newly elected and taking all this in – and admittedly, have plenty more to learn of the operations of town government and finance. This information is helpful and insightful, and I am grateful you shared it with the listserv.

 

Couple of thoughts.

 

  • First, the course can continue to operate with the current facility, however I grant you it needs repair if to continue in use. So, a NO vote does not close the course nor prevent this revenue for another season.
  • However, by pausing construction and ultimately this expenditure at this moment, especially considering such historically major recent capital investments (Fire Station, Police Station and upcoming LHS), it empowers us to take an analytical and comprehensive evaluation of the property. As I said, I think you can still have revenue, either with a partial sale or expanding the use to other forms of recreation, and then we can renovate the building to support whatever outcome is determined best for the community.

 

I am suggesting a NO vote is a vote to pause, and that is a reasonable ask.

 

Thanks very much!

Best,

Alex

vbuc...@rcn.com

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 6:33:01 PM3/31/24
to boardmanliu, LexTMMA
It is important to note that the clubhouse inaccessibility was targeted as a problem in the original ADA report that the Town had to file in the 90's.  The Commission on Disability has cited the need for renovation for years. It is crucial that the Town not only " talk the talk " but also "walk the walk" following through on the Full Inclusion  Resolution.  All people need to have full and equal access to services and programs. 
 Please support the clubhouse article.
Victoria Buckley 
Precinct 8
Chair,  Commission on Disability 
From: boardmanliu <board...@gmail.com>
To: LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, 31 March 2024 3:37 PM EDT
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

Jenny Richlin

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 6:36:11 PM3/31/24
to Avram Baskin, Town Meeting Members
Alex - Thank you for raising these questions. 

The course uses a very large number of acres for a single form of recreation. For me, that’s the difference between the golf course and, for example, the basketball courts, tennis courts or skate park which require much less acreage per activity.  

There are many competing needs for town-owned land at this time, which likely was not the case decades ago when the golf course was built. It would make sense to take some time, before investing more money into the course, to ask if this is the best use of this land given all of the town’s needs. 

I agree with Barbara that this would necessitate a community-wide conversation, but I don’t think that should be a deterrent. It took many years and many community conversations before agreeing to build the community center. Now that it’s here, I believe most residents would agree that it was a worthwhile endeavor. 

My only question is are there any pre-existing restrictions about how that land may be used? Was it deeded to the town to be used for a golf course, or for recreation in general in perpetuity? Or can it be repurposed based on Lexington’s current needs?

Respectfully,
Jenny Richlin, TMM P4

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 31, 2024, at 4:35 PM, 'Avram Baskin' via LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I’m going to vote “no” on this article, not because I’m opposed to the golf course or renovating the building, but because I think it would be worth while to spend a year doing community outreach to see if there is another use that residents would like to see some or all of the 60 acres used for.

Charles Lamb

unread,
Mar 31, 2024, 7:07:36 PM3/31/24
to lex...@googlegroups.com
The clubhouse renovation has been listed on (at least) the previous three years’ of CEC 5YCP. I stopped at 2021.

Charles Lamb, Chair CEC

Ruth Thomas

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 8:37:24 AM4/1/24
to Avram Baskin, Town Meeting Members
There may be some use restrictions, i.e., recreation, maybe open space.

Ruth Thomas, TMM4

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/5770F1A7-8B5C-4E02-9226-8A01B43244E9%40icloud.com.

Sanjay Padaki

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 11:14:14 AM4/1/24
to Town Meeting Members
With regards to a NO vote being a Pause, I believe the rules are that an article that is voted down by Town Meeting cannot come back for at least 2 years. The moderator or other knowledgeable folks in this group can confirm.
Regards,
Sanjay Padaki
Precinct 8


To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CADvQVgySQPFHK119UUjTQiw%2Bp3eq%2BdcOyGrT9BT_fqVBgG_9tQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Message has been deleted

Harry Forsdick

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 11:48:24 AM4/1/24
to Sanjay Padaki, Town Meeting Members
Sanjay,

I just asked this question of ChatGPT 4.0: 

In Lexington MA Town Meeting, there is a rule that an article that is voted down by Town Meeting cannot come back for at least 2 years. Can you give me the details of that rule? Does it apply to all articles or just zoning articles?

The answer I got back was:

In Lexington, Massachusetts, Town Meeting operates under specific rules regarding the reconsideration of articles that have been voted down. Let me provide you with the relevant details:

  1. Reconsideration Rule:

  2. Scope of Application:


Regards,

-- Harry Forsdick

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAHSsnu9z33CEBdCfjRU4ToRDHf_ULizxwrNik03f5K9ypSAhLA%40mail.gmail.com.

Valerie Overton

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 12:01:33 PM4/1/24
to ha...@forsdick.com, Sanjay Padaki, Town Meeting Members

If there is enough sentiment that a delay would be useful, a proponent can ask that an article be indefinitely postponed (IP). This makes it possible to have further conversation and analysis and bring the article back at the next (or any future) Town Meeting. In my experience, this happens from time to time.

 

I’m not necessarily suggesting this – just noting the option.

 

Valerie Overton (she/her)

Precinct 1

From: lex...@googlegroups.com <lex...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Harry Forsdick
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Sanjay Padaki <sanjay...@gmail.com>
Cc: Town Meeting Members <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

 

CAUTION: Don't open links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know they are safe.

Deborah Brown

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 12:13:34 PM4/1/24
to ha...@forsdick.com, Sanjay Padaki, Town Meeting Members
Harry, Harry, Harry. What a vivid demonstration of the pitfalls of using AI without checking the validity of the answer!

Reconsideration is about bringing an article back within the same Town Meeting, not a future Town Meeting.

Try again ;)

Deborah 
617-512-7901


Deborah Brown

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 12:24:24 PM4/1/24
to LexTMMA
Joe Pato has been trying unsuccessfully to send the following response to the TMMA list; I couldn't have said it better myself, so I will simply present Joe's answer here:

From: Joe Pato


Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 12:08 PM

Cc: Town Meeting Members <lex...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: RE: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

 

Harry – this is a reminder that ChatGPT can invent answers… (and that wickedlocal isn’t a definitive source)

 

Mr. Padaki is incorrect. The 2-year limitation applies only to zoning bylaw changes:

 

“No proposed zoning ordinance or by-law which has been unfavorably acted upon by a city council or town meeting shall be considered by the city council or town meeting within two years after the date of such unfavorable action unless the adoption of such proposed ordinance or by-law is recommended in the final report of the planning board.”

From Mass General Law Part I, Title VII, Chapter 40A, Section 5 (malegislature.gov)

 

The reference to reconsideration is in the Town Bylaws (section 118-14) , but this only applies to items within a Town Meeting not at a future meeting.

 

 

- Joe Pato, Select Board Chair


Rita Vachani

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 12:40:19 PM4/1/24
to Alex Tsouvalas, lex...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Alex for raising this issue.

Eric - thank you for the financial analysis of the Recreation Enterprise Fund. It is clear that the golf course is net positive (are there no administrative or debt costs  incurred because of/or attributable to the golf course?). 

However, the questions I take away from Alex's initial email are:
(i) if we only want to view this from a financial lens, could the Town generate the same amount or more by using the land differently?
(ii) could we use some of the land for other purposes and still generate a financial net positive result by using the remaining parcel differently?
(iii) are there other potential uses for which we are willing to give up some of the net positive financial benefits?

I think this is a conversation worth having. Can we get data on how many Town residents use the golf course? The other recreation facilities are used primarily by residents. 

I realize that if we keep delaying the renovations, we do not meet the ADA requirements and extend the period for which we do not provide equal access to the facility as pointed out by Victoria. 

I am inclined to vote no on this Article, but will wait for the discussion at Town Meeting.

--Rita Vachani
TMM, Precinct 2




On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 5:42 PM Alex Tsouvalas <al...@tsouvalas.com> wrote:
--

rllo...@rcn.com

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 1:12:08 PM4/1/24
to Sanjay Padaki, LexTMMA
Hi All,
     No matter what the use of this property, there will always be a need for accessible bathrooms and shelter. To reject these improvements now simply makes them more expensive in the future as well as violating the ADA in letter and spirit.
Please consider voting yes for the long-delayed project.
Thanks,
Robin Lovett
Precict 8

From: "Sanjay Padaki" <sanjay...@gmail.com>
To: "LexTMMA" <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:13:35 AM
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

Joe Pato

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 1:12:08 PM4/1/24
to ha...@forsdick.com, Town Meeting Members

Harry – this is a reminder that ChatGPT can invent answers… (and that wickedlocal isn’t a definitive source)

 

Mr. Padaki is incorrect. The 2-year limitation applies only to zoning bylaw changes:

 

“No proposed zoning ordinance or by-law which has been unfavorably acted upon by a city council or town meeting shall be considered by the city council or town meeting within two years after the date of such unfavorable action unless the adoption of such proposed ordinance or by-law is recommended in the final report of the planning board.”

From Mass General Law Part I, Title VII, Chapter 40A, Section 5 (malegislature.gov)

 

The reference to reconsideration is in the Town Bylaws (section 118-14) , but this only applies to items within a Town Meeting not at a future meeting.

 

 

- Joe Pato, Select Board Chair

please use jp...@lexingtonma.gov for town correspondence

(When writing or responding please understand that the Secretary of State has determined that emails are a public record and, therefore, may not be kept confidential.)

 

 

 

 

From: lex...@googlegroups.com <lex...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Harry Forsdick


Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Sanjay Padaki <sanjay...@gmail.com>

Cc: Town Meeting Members <lex...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

 

USE CAUTION: This email came from outside the Town of Lexington. Do not click links, open attachments or respond to the email unless you recognize the sender, you are expecting the communication and you know the content is safe.

 

When writing or responding, please be aware that the Massachusetts Secretary of State has determined that most email is a public record and, therefore, may not be kept confidential.

er...@michelsonshoes.com

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 1:12:08 PM4/1/24
to Sanjay Padaki, Town Meeting Members

Sanjay,

 

The 2 year rule applies to Zoning Articles only.

 

If a Zoning Article is negatively ruled on by Town Meeting (voted down or IP’d), it can only be brought back for a Town Meeting vote prior to 2 years with a favorable recommendation from the Planning Board.

 

Eric Michelson

Precinct 1

 

From: lex...@googlegroups.com <lex...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Sanjay Padaki
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:14 AM
To: Town Meeting Members <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

 

With regards to a NO vote being a Pause, I believe the rules are that an article that is voted down by Town Meeting cannot come back for at least 2 years. The moderator or other knowledgeable folks in this group can confirm.

Noah Michelson

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 1:12:24 PM4/1/24
to LexTMMA, ha...@forsdick.com
Harry,
Do you have any other source for this information? The link that the reliably unreliable ChatGPT provided does not contain the information it purports to. In addition, the first bullet is incorrect, which can easily be seen if you check the Town Bylaws posted on the Town’s website. 

As far as I am aware, the only restriction on articles coming back in future Town Meetings after previous negative action is on zoning articles, which is why common practice has been to refer such articles back to the Planning Board. 

I strongly encourage all TMMs to read both the Town Bylaws governing Town Meeting as well as Town Meeting Time, a publication of the Mass Moderators Ass., to understand the laws and rules that make Town Meeting work.

Noah Michelson
Precinct 1

On Apr 1, 2024, at 11:48, Harry Forsdick <fors...@gmail.com> wrote:



joe....@zpato.net

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 1:12:25 PM4/1/24
to Town Meeting Members

Harry – this is a reminder that ChatGPT can invent answers… (and that wickedlocal isn’t a definitive source)

 

Mr. Padaki is incorrect. The 2-year limitation applies only to zoning bylaw changes:

 

“No proposed zoning ordinance or by-law which has been unfavorably acted upon by a city council or town meeting shall be considered by the city council or town meeting within two years after the date of such unfavorable action unless the adoption of such proposed ordinance or by-law is recommended in the final report of the planning board.”

From Mass General Law Part I, Title VII, Chapter 40A, Section 5 (malegislature.gov)

 

The reference to reconsideration is in the Town Bylaws (section 118-14) , but this only applies to items within a Town Meeting not at a future meeting.

 

 

- Joe Pato, Select Board Chair

please use jp...@lexingtonma.gov for town correspondence

(When writing or responding please understand that the Secretary of State has determined that emails are a public record and, therefore, may not be kept confidential.)

 

 

 

 

From: lex...@googlegroups.com <lex...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Harry Forsdick


Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 11:48 AM
To: Sanjay Padaki <sanjay...@gmail.com>

Cc: Town Meeting Members <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

 

USE CAUTION: This email came from outside the Town of Lexington. Do not click links, open attachments or respond to the email unless you recognize the sender, you are expecting the communication and you know the content is safe.

 

Sanjay,

Kunal Botla

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 2:00:12 PM4/1/24
to Town Meeting Members
Alex, thank you for offering this analysis.

I’m in agreement that we should explore how the property could best serve Lexington. I’m not opposed to renovating the building, but I think those conversations are worth having before investing over $2.5 million in something that may not be serving the town’s needs. 

I would support voting no or the article being postponed.

The Town of Canton had gotten an analysis of what their options for golf courses (seemingly private) could be alternatively used for. Maybe we could look into something similar. With over 150 acres of golf courses in town, knowing what residents want to see would be valuable.

Regarding AI, I would encourage everyone who’s using chatbots to be familiar with the idea of “hallucination;” the New York Times has an article explaining it.

Kunal Botla
Precinct 4

--
Kunal Botla

Ruth Thomas

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 2:58:39 PM4/1/24
to rllo...@rcn.com, Sanjay Padaki, LexTMMA
I will vote YES and  agree with Robin:
  
"No matter what the use of this property, there will always be a need for accessible bathrooms and shelter. To reject these improvements now simply makes them more expensive in the future as well as violating the ADA in letter and spirit." 

Transferring recreation land for other uses is not to be taken lightly.

Plus, the golf course's mature trees absorb pollution from cars and trucks driving on its I95 border .

Please consider voting in support of Article 25.

Ruth Thomas, TMM4






To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/2016896042.145400222.1711986135276.JavaMail.zimbra%40rcn.com.

Sanjay Padaki

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 2:58:40 PM4/1/24
to Town Meeting Members
Joe,
Thank you for the clarification that the two year rule only applies to zoning articles.

Regards,
Sanjay Padaki
Precinct 8

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/EE2CABF6-7070-4C35-8244-4611482EDD88%40kunalbotla.com.

Harry Forsdick

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 3:08:48 PM4/1/24
to joe....@zpato.net, Town Meeting Members
Darn!  I’m usually pretty careful about this.  This only confirms how easy it is to be fooled by getting a wrong answer in a perfectly worded response.  No hints that there is any hesitation about the reply.

— Harry

Harry Forsdick

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 4:08:33 PM4/1/24
to camp...@gmail.com, Sanjay Padaki, Town Meeting Members
Deborah,

Right you are -- but I'm not about to stop using ChatGPT because in my experience it is far better at finding correct answers than incorrect ones.

I just asked Copilot (ChatGPT) the following question:

Harry:
What is it called when you are eager to believe an explanation that confirms your desired understanding?

Copilot:
The phenomenon you’re describing is known as confirmation bias. It refers to our tendency to favor information that aligns with our existing beliefs or desires while dismissing or ignoring evidence that contradicts them. Essentially, when we’re eager to believe something, we tend to seek out and accept explanations that confirm what we already want to be true. This cognitive bias can influence our decision-making and perception of the world around us.

That's precisely what happened to me.  I had a preconceived answer to the question I asked which was:

Harry:
In Lexington MA Town Meeting, there is a rule that an article that is voted down by Town Meeting cannot come back for at least 2 years. Can you give me the details of that rule? Does it apply to all articles or just zoning articles?

That last sentence specifically demonstrates where my bias was: I had a suspicion that it applied to some articles, but not all.  When ChatGPT specifically answered my second sentence, then I thought that it was being meticulous in addressing my concern.  Great.  I was right in my assumption that it applied to all articles... But ChatGPT being meticulous and wrong at the same time is what did me in...

So, I did what I should have done in the first place -- I asked ChatGPT to check it's answer:

Harry:
Regarding your previous answer about the rules for whether you can bring an article back to Town Meeting before two years, I have learned that you answer that the rule that the rule applies for two years for all articles is incorrect. This rule applies only for zoning bylaw changes.

Copilot:
Thank you for the clarification! I appreciate your attention to detail. You are absolutely correct. I apologize for any confusion in my initial response.

The rule that an article cannot be brought back for reconsideration within two years specifically applies to zoning bylaw changes in Lexington, Massachusetts. For other types of articles, this restriction does not apply. I apologize for any misunderstanding, and I’m grateful for your diligence in pointing out the specific context.

If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask!

I have generally found that ChatGPT is very polite, and bends over backwards when it is wrong and you point this out.  Now, the cool thing would be if it learned anything from its interaction with me.  It doesn't:  Even though it apologized profusely, when I asked the question a second time, it still gave the wrong answer. 

Sigh.

Regards,

-- Harry

Message has been deleted

Ruth Thomas

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 5:08:53 PM4/1/24
to Alex Tsouvalas, rllo...@rcn.com, Sanjay Padaki, LexTMMA
Finally, got your message--get rid of the golf course.  I disagree.

And, all those folks and kids you envision using the area for other recreational activities will inevitably need a bathroom or two or three.  As far as I know, the closest public bathrooms are at the Center Playground, the library, and Visitor's Center.  The three-year old won't make it!

Let's get the Clubhouse renovated!

Ruth Thomas, TMM4




On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:09 PM Alex Tsouvalas <al...@tsouvalas.com> wrote:

Dear Ruth and others expressing concerns regarding accessibility and ADA compliance as well as conservation and sustainability, I want to share a few thoughts.

 

First, regarding the upgrade to the building, yes it would be far better for folks in need of better accessibility, but again, let’s think outside the box here. Imagine an entire space designed with accessibility in mind, not just a clubhouse, but recreation space, accessible playgrounds, and wheelchair friendly walking trails and putting holes, for example. Trees must be protected, agreed, but consider water use for the greens and the chemicals & pesticides, etc. Again – not to say golf might be the best use of this land, but don’t we owe it to our constituents to simply consider something grander?

 

So to be clear, accessibility is a core value I certainly share and must be prioritized no matter what we do, but that does not mean we have to rush.

 

Thanks so much!

Best,

Alex

Syed Rizvi

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 5:10:09 PM4/1/24
to Alex Tsouvalas, lex...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Alex for sharing your detailed analysis. I am also leaning towards a "no" and am closely following discussions on it. 
Syed Ali Rizvi
TMM - PCT 2. 
237 Worthen Road E, Lexington, MA, 02421 USA 
There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. Elie Weisel.

Message has been deleted

b...@metaprosystems.com

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 6:17:10 PM4/1/24
to Ruth Thomas, rllo...@rcn.com, Sanjay Padaki, LexTMMA

I am in favor of passing Article 25 and leaving the golf course as it is. I will make my arguments tonight if it become necessary.

 

Bob Avallone

Town Meeting Member

Precinct 8

Lexington

 

From: 'Ruth Thomas' via LexTMMA <lex...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 2:58 PM
To: rllo...@rcn.com

Umesh

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 6:18:50 PM4/1/24
to Syed Rizvi, Alex Tsouvalas, lex...@googlegroups.com
Article 25, before Town Meeting, addresses whether $2.5MM should be invested to renovate the Pine Meadows Golf clubhouse, only.

A significant component of the renovation is to allow for updated ADA compliance. A vote against Article 25 is a vote opposed to the inclusion of disabled persons into our public facilities. Second, the course generates revenue of close to $900K/year, resultinging in a breakeven return on investment of three years. Compare this to the 7-10 years it takes to recover the typical investment in a solar panel investment. There are multiple projects Town Meeting funds that generate negative returns, or generate returns well below expected returns. Here is a proven financial success story. Third, the course itself is accessible to all levels of amateur golfers and, at $22/round, provides for a healthy recreational activity to Lexington residents of all financial means. Finally, I've heard the argument that even without the $2.5MM investment, the golf course would be expected to generate the same revenue. Well, then that same logic should be applied to other projects, many which will never generate any revenue, and therefore, should not be undertaken at all.

I am voting YES on Article 25.

Umesh Shelat, Precinct 7



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lextmma/CAO9q1Q4s1Zypnf0LmBnvgLcFJ%2BBjGfC0CeTv8vpTo_%3D7C2bxpw%40mail.gmail.com.

Harry Forsdick

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 7:36:32 PM4/1/24
to Umesh, Alex Tsouvalas, Syed Rizvi, lex...@googlegroups.com
Umesh,

I think there are some problems with what you have concluded about for or against Article 25.

1. Voting against A25 is not necessarily a vote against inclusion of disabled people.  I have been wondering whether using the land occupied by pine meadows is the best use of land in Lexington when it could contribute to help solve the housing shortage in MA.

2. You talk about it generating $900k/year resulting in a payback period of only three years.  The only problem with that idea is that the 900k/year is already spent in the current budget for funding the recreation program in Lexington.  Can’t spend the proceeds twice.

3. Your third point that the Golf Club provides an inexpensive way for people to play golf.  While I’m always happy to get a great deal, I’m not entirely sure that a small fraction of the town should benefit from the his good deal. There are several other Golf Clubs in or near Lexington, so we could clearly understand how good a deal Pine Meadows is when we compare the market rate for playing golf.

Thanks,

— Harry


Umesh

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 7:44:31 PM4/1/24
to ha...@forsdick.com, Alex Tsouvalas, Syed Rizvi, lex...@googlegroups.com
Harry,

I disagree with each of your points.
  1. Updated ADA compliance is necessary
  2. The revenue is spent only because it has consistently been generating revenue year after year.
  3. I don't believe your rebuttal addresses my point #3
Best,

Umesh, P7

Alex Tsouvalas

unread,
Apr 1, 2024, 10:56:06 PM4/1/24
to Umesh, ha...@forsdick.com, Syed Rizvi, lex...@googlegroups.com

Howdy folks,

 

This question certainly engendered some lively debate and discussion, which is pretty cool. After learning that essentially we are legally required to operate a golf course at Pine Meadows (who knew? Certainly not the people I spoke to prior to sending my email, including a member of the Select Board), and that the property not only generates revenue but has a positive NOI. In the end, I voted yes to renovate the clubhouse.

 

Moving forward I will be interested to see if we might find other ways to maximize the property’s use, and in other season, potentially. I am glad that the Select Board took the time in their meeting tonight to provide this background information.

 

Have a great night.

Best,

Alex

 

-- 

Alex J. Tsouvalas

Town Meeting – Precinct 5

al...@tsouvalas.com

alex.ts...@lexingtontmma.org

(508) 397-5748

 

 

From: Umesh <ush...@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2024 at 7:44 PM
To: ha...@forsdick.com <ha...@forsdick.com>
Cc: Alex Tsouvalas <al...@tsouvalas.com>, Syed Rizvi <alirizv...@gmail.com>, lex...@googlegroups.com <lex...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [LexTMMA] Article 25: A once-in-a-generation opportunity – Please VOTE NO

Edward Dolan

unread,
Apr 2, 2024, 1:33:53 PM4/2/24
to Alex Tsouvalas, Umesh, ha...@forsdick.com, Syed Rizvi, lex...@googlegroups.com
Alex, I guess I heard Charles Lamb a little differently on the use of the Pine Meadows Golf Course.  We have voted to renovate/update the facility there.  Great.  As for the use of the property, I heard that it must be for recreational purposes -- not necessarily a golf course.  In the debate on resurfacing Lincoln Field again with plastic turf, like last year, I heard about a really dire lack of athletic fields for both youth and adult use.  Lexington is not a poor town.  Would we be willing to forego the revenue we collect from Pine Meadows in order to repurpose that real estate to another recreational purpose: athletic fields?



--
Edward Dolan
66 Potter Pond
Lexington, MA  02421
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages