Lunenburg to hold Special Town Meeting - Sentinel & Enterprise

not happy wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't get it. You would rather see the land developed with single family homes (you know, the kind that have kids that go to school) rather than spend a lousy 575k (and in relation to other projects, it's a drop in the bucket) to keep land open. What do you want? To be the next Acton?

The town has enough issues without getting into the land acquisition business. I like Acton and
the people there also.
Clarence E. Floyd
720 Goodrich St.
Lunenburg

Clarence Floyd wrote:

<quoted text>
The town has enough issues without getting into the land acquisition business. I like Acton and
the people there also.
Clarence E. Floyd
720 Goodrich St.
Lunenburg

I grew up in Acton, we moved there in the 1960's and my mother jokes there were more cows than people - now she complains about her property taxes and how much money the town spent on the high school (sound familiar?)- I'd rather have designated open land in Lunenburg than live in a town like Acton over run with condos and apartments like Briarwood.

I'd still like to know how many houses they can legally build on this property in question and how that affects services such as the schools, fire, and police staffing.

not happy wrote:

<quoted text>
I grew up in Acton, we moved there in the 1960's and my mother jokes there were more cows than people - now she complains about her property taxes and how much money the town spent on the high school (sound familiar?)- I'd rather have designated open land in Lunenburg than live in a town like Acton over run with condos and apartments like Briarwood.
I'd still like to know how many houses they can legally build on this property in question and how that affects services such as the schools, fire, and police staffing.

If the town could acquire this land without me being taxed to pay for it--I could go along.
But, I just don't see it happening that way.
As such, I'll rally all the people I can in town
to vote against it!
Next year it will be some other property, the year after another and so on.
I can't afford to live here and I can't afford to leave. As a taxpayer--I'm trapped.
C. Floyd
over here on Goodrich St.
Lunenburg

Clarence Floyd wrote:

<quoted text>
If the town could acquire this land without me being taxed to pay for it--I could go along.
But, I just don't see it happening that way.
As such, I'll rally all the people I can in town
to vote against it!
Next year it will be some other property, the year after another and so on.
I can't afford to live here and I can't afford to leave. As a taxpayer--I'm trapped.
C. Floyd
over here on Goodrich St.
Lunenburg

You said it all in a nutshell, Mr. Floyd.
Many people have the misconception that Lunenburg is wealthy. It's quite the opposite. I've never seen so many people struggling financially, and the town government shooting for broke, just to maintain a false illusion that Lunenburg is prestigious. Give me a break!!! This is the poorest little "rich" town I've ever seen. It's time for people to get real.
I'll be there at town meeting to vote NO on this as well. There is no reason why residents should have to pay another dime in taxes! We pay enough...with very little return as it is. It's time to be sensible and vote NO to spending(although it won't be presented that way...the residents are always treated like they are stupid)
Mr. Floyd, thank you for being the sensible voice in Lunenburg!!! You are appreciated! Keep rallying!!

not happy wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't get it. You would rather see the land developed with single family homes (you know, the kind that have kids that go to school) rather than spend a lousy 575k (and in relation to other projects, it's a drop in the bucket) to keep land open. What do you want? To be the next Acton?

Perhaps, since 575k is a drop in the bucket for you, you'd like to donate it the town and save evryone the trouble. That would take care of it. If that's not the case, then you can't assume that everyone has the same willingness to pay higher taxes as you do.

more perceptive wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps, since 575k is a drop in the bucket for you, you'd like to donate it the town and save evryone the trouble. That would take care of it. If that's not the case, then you can't assume that everyone has the same willingness to pay higher taxes as you do.

Sadly, you think if the town doesn't buy the land and it goes to a developer who adds homes to the 50 acres of land will not cost you more in taxes. But it will cost you more. You will be paying for those kids to go to school, for the additional costs of police patrols, plowing, road maintenance, fire and emergency services. If the land goes to a developer who puts houses on the land your taxes will go up because the revenue brought in by property taxes does not cover the costs of services. So do you want to pay more in property taxes and have more development in Lunenburg or keep its open spaces?

not happy wrote:

<quoted text>
Sadly, you think if the town doesn't buy the land and it goes to a developer who adds homes to the 50 acres of land will not cost you more in taxes. But it will cost you more. You will be paying for those kids to go to school, for the additional costs of police patrols, plowing, road maintenance, fire and emergency services. If the land goes to a developer who puts houses on the land your taxes will go up because the revenue brought in by property taxes does not cover the costs of services. So do you want to pay more in property taxes and have more development in Lunenburg or keep its open spaces?

I choose more development. The cost of more services will be covered by the real estate tax coming in from those new homes. Preferably, industrial and commercial development would be a huge boost to the towns finances. Lunenburg needs to grow..or die.
Right now , it's barely keeping it's head above water. It's time to develop.
Costs of services are going to go up anyway, and open space can't seem to foot the bill.

more perceptive wrote:

<quoted text>
I choose more development. The cost of more services will be covered by the real estate tax coming in from those new homes.

That's the whole point, the real estate taxes don't cover the cost of the services to those new homes!

just me wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the whole point, the real estate taxes don't cover the cost of the services to those new homes!

If the town was so concerned with "open space", they'd leave Tri-Town drive ins as open space. By the planning board developing that, they goes against the whole principal they supposedly believe in. Don't be fooled. If they can make a quick buck by putting in a few more buildings with 60 apartments in each...they'll do it on that "open space".
This is not about conservation...it's about segregation of socio-economics.

more perceptive wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps, since 575k is a drop in the bucket for you, you'd like to donate it the town and save evryone the trouble. That would take care of it. If that's not the case, then you can't assume that everyone has the same willingness to pay higher taxes as you do.

Amen to that!

Clarence
Still over here in Lunenburg.

more perceptive wrote:

<quoted text>
I choose more development. The cost of more services will be covered by the real estate tax coming in from those new homes. Preferably, industrial and commercial development would be a huge boost to the towns finances. Lunenburg needs to grow..or die.
Right now , it's barely keeping it's head above water. It's time to develop.
Costs of services are going to go up anyway, and open space can't seem to foot the bill.

Are you a would-be developer, More Perceptive?

As long as Lunenburg residents keep allowing the selectmen to come up with rediculous Idea's and plans that will eventually drain more money out of the tax payers pockets.
They should be demanding that these selectman find ways to lower taxes before they all lose their homes.. The residents of Lunenburg. and Its awfull to watch them flush themselves down the toilette. will eventually tax themselves Into Trailer Parks.
50 more home's means more tax dollars for the town. Again what your real smart selectman are doing is as bad as one of your selectmans grand Idea to take Whalom Park by eminant domain,For once the residents of the town outsmarted the dummies.........

more perceptive wrote:

<quoted text>
If the town was so concerned with "open space", they'd leave Tri-Town drive ins as open space. By the planning board developing that, they goes against the whole principal they supposedly believe in. Don't be fooled. If they can make a quick buck by putting in a few more buildings with 60 apartments in each...they'll do it on that "open space".
This is not about conservation...it's about segregation of socio-economics.

Then call it what it is - don't say you won't vote for it because your taxes will go up!

more perceptive wrote:

<quoted text>
If the town was so concerned with "open space", they'd leave Tri-Town drive ins as open space. By the planning board developing that, they goes against the whole principal they supposedly believe in. Don't be fooled. If they can make a quick buck by putting in a few more buildings with 60 apartments in each...they'll do it on that "open space".
This is not about conservation...it's about segregation of socio-economics.

Just say no is a message I understand, some one just doesn't have the money to spend. I get this. This disinformation, I don't get. First of all Tri-town is private property the owner is choosing to develop. Yes apparently the town is supporting it, and Town meeting would have had to vote for it, not your Board of Selectmen.

And you are right, its not about conservation in the sense of getting some land and making some more trails. It is about managing growth, and keeping some open space. Tri-town is not about the short dollars the state throws at the town. It's about meeting the 10% affordable housing quota so developers cannot run around and put huge development up whereever they want to.

Building 204 appartments has exactly the same objective as buying the land. There is no inconsitency. It is all about the town planners, not private developers, trying to decide where the Town should grow.

Curious wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you a would-be developer, More Perceptive?

If I had the opportunity...of course I would be. And so would you!

just me wrote:

<quoted text>
Then call it what it is - don't say you won't vote for it because your taxes will go up!

I won't vote for it because I believe in principals. Not taxes

Former Municipal Official wrote:

<quoted text>
Just say no is a message I understand, some one just doesn't have the money to spend. I get this. This disinformation, I don't get. First of all Tri-town is private property the owner is choosing to develop. Yes apparently the town is supporting it, and Town meeting would have had to vote for it, not your Board of Selectmen.
And you are right, its not about conservation in the sense of getting some land and making some more trails. It is about managing growth, and keeping some open space. Tri-town is not about the short dollars the state throws at the town. It's about meeting the 10% affordable housing quota so developers cannot run around and put huge development up whereever they want to.
Building 204 appartments has exactly the same objective as buying the land. There is no inconsitency. It is all about the town planners, not private developers, trying to decide where the Town should grow.

THAT'S DISCRIMINATION
Apparently, the town has no problem "running around building huge projects" in areas outside of their own neighborhoods. You are the perfect example of why the anti-snob laws were created. Your frame of thinking.....separating the lower income from the higher income..is no different than than separating Afro-American people from White people. It's called segragation...and you should be ashamed of yourself! That 10% should and will be distributed evenly and appropriately throughout the town. Not just the outskirts. You call that planning??? I call it discrimination...and the Housing Authority does too!!
Former Municipal Official wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Chapter 40R, which offers incentives, also encourages affordable housing.(The carrot, if 40B is the stick). It was enacted by the legislature because they recognized that municipalities needed help controling where these required housing units should go. The legislature is is a partner with municipalities in making your government work for you.
Could it be that 40B hasn't been fixed despite many efforts to do so because developers have effectively lobbied against some important reforms? Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The 40B law only requires 25% affordable housing. If its such a good idea, why not 50%, or at least 1/3? Forget about the "anti-snob" feautres for a moment, what I am saying is that besides that, the statute does not meet its own goals.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing as far as percentages go. And "forget about anti-snob laws??"
That's the whole point!! Towns would love nothing more than to just use 40R to "get it over with" as far as meeting affordable housing criteria....and lump it all in one location..the location they decide....which is the furthest away from the community!!! i.e. TRI-TOWN. Then they can say "there, now we've met criteria,we've put all of "those" people far, far away from the rest of us, so we can continue to live in our "snob" neighborhoods" The 40 B laws protect people from that, and distribute the affordable housing appropriately. By only putting 25% here, and 25 % there, the affordable housing is no longer "clumped" together in one place, and all people of all socio-economic backgrouinds can co-habitate in the same community. That's what 40B is designed to do, and that's why it's a law. To prevent discrimination.
It has nothing to do with 'effective lobbying", it has to do with what's right. The Housing authority commission is well aware of this,and is also well aware that small towns don't need help "controlling" anything...because it would be unethical as a municipal to dicriminate citizens who qualify as affordable housing candidates. The laws are designed to help the PEOPLE, not the town government or the developers.

The message we are sending here to young people wanting to move in and start a family is, "We don't want you here."

Some of you moved in 10-15 years ago and things have been great--right?

So, look at the children living in your house that will be grown up in a few years and think about how hard it's going to be to to tell them that you are part of the reason they won't be living here because you wanted to control the GROWTH of the town back in '08 and since then and that you did it, "for the children."

The prosecution rests.

Still over here on Goodrich St.
CLARENCE

No, we moved here 15 years ago and things haven't been "great" - we had to work hard with (and notice I said with and not against) people who liked to say "just say no" to get a library built (before this library we took our kids to the Acton library), and when it was time to send our kids to school, they were so frightened by the condition of the primary school, that we felt compelled to look for an education alternative, we see our friends get big fat booklets filled with activities at their local park and recreation fields, and when I go to the Lunenburg Town Hall to pick up Lunenburg's summer offerings, I get one 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper --and I pay to use the Town Beach which shuts down mid-August, so no, it hasn't been great, but it's what we chose, a small town with lots of open space - We're all for sharing Lunenburg with anyone who wants to move in, but we understand more housing doesn't create more town revenue, it depleats it. We chose Lunenburg so our kids, if they choose to attend high school here, would not be in a school with 1,000 kids and would know what it was like to play in the woods before being called in to dinner...

With no new families, as time goes on, we have no new children. Children are the key to the development of a community. Young people will not raise taxes but will provide workers, shoppers, and volunteers--the future of the community!
We must look past ourselves!

Still over here on Goodrich St.