Since the fall of 2009, a large number of people in town have been working on a new Master Plan. I confess I knew there was a new master plan in the works — I was at the (Fall 2009) town meeting when there was heated discussion as to whether or not we really needed to fund a new master plan. I sided with the FinCom and didn’t think it was really necessary. But alas, there was some backroom compromise, cutting of some costs, and a new master plan committee was off and rolling. While there were many advertisements asking people to participate in the committee, I confess, I never attended a single meeting. We are all time limited and my interests run more towards math and statistics, ala, the Board of Assessors. We all can’t be involved with all aspects of town government, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t invested in the outcomes.
In early January (2012), the editor of The Groton Herald wrote an article about the new proposed Master Plan. His article certainly caught my attention. I went online and read a good deal of the proposed plan. I also attended the next Planning Board meeting to learn more. I’m not liking what I’ve learned. Last week there was a rebuttal letter in the Herald and The Groton Line from Scott Wilson, defending the plan and criticizing the initial article. To be clear, while Mr. Wilson’s a member of the Planning Board, he was writing as an individual, not on behalf of the board. Below is my response to his letter. While I state my belief about what will happen to property taxes in town, much like Mr. Wilson, I am writing as an individual, not as a member of the Board of Assessors.
Last week there was a rebuttal letter from Scott Wilson regarding concerns with the proposed Town Master Plan. Anytime someone uses the phrase “our collective moral” to justify a significant change in policy, my natural reaction is question the new policy.
Take a look at the new Town Master Plan. The following are direct quotes from the introduction. The gory details in the later sections only support these statements, and my fears.
- “Sustainability is the overarching focus of Groton’s Master Plan and a common thread in all of the plan’s elements.” – “Economic development that dismisses impacts on the environment or social equity would also not be sustainable.”
- “To further align with this principle of sustainability, Groton should identify and take steps to enable and encourage development—including changing land use regulations and offering development incentives—in areas identified for concentrated development.”
- “Groton’s greatest obstacle to advancing social equity is its housing policy, discussed below. Without expanding housing opportunities, Groton cannot truly be an equitable and sustainable community.”
- “Groton’s homes are expensive relative to the majority of surrounding towns, and while this benefits existing homeowners, it does not bode well for meeting the housing goals of this Master Plan.”
- “To meet the Master Plan’s goals for housing diversity – that is, a mix of housing types at all market levels – and specifically to provide more apartments, Groton will need to be open to modifying its zoning requirements in and adjacent to village commercial areas.”
Basically, the underlying message in this Master Plan is the people here need to change. We are an affluent community, and we need to increase our sociodiversity and further social equity, even if it does not “bode well” with the current homeowners. This is our “collective moral.” The proposed solution to this perceived problem is to spur population growth with affordable apartments and condos in the village centers, after 50+ years of specifically trying to avoid that.
Is Groton affluent? Sure, to some degree. Although we’re not Carlisle or Weston or Dover. Reality is we’re not even in the top 10% in the state. But most of us knew that when we came here. I’d venture to say, Groton’s affluence, and its high performing schools that go hand-in-hand with affluence, is what drew us to town. After 25 years in town, I am now being told that what drew me to town is wrong, and that it is my collective moral to increase sociodiversity
It appears it is also my collective moral (and most likely yours, too) to fund this drive for social equity through our increased property taxes. While taxes are not a specific part of the plan, increased taxes will be the net effect. Increased population growth leads to an increased burden on the schools. Just a few years ago the future showed a decrease in students, and therefore, Prescott was closed and is no longer an option for housing students. Increased population, equals increased students, equals increased need for new schools, equals debt exclusion and increased property taxes. Furthermore, if the new housing is “affordable” as per the goal, the residents will be paying less per person in property taxes than the average resident in the “expensive” homes, yet the cost to educate the students is the same. The result is more of that collective moral to share the wealth.
The Master Plan is 218 pages long. I’ve only touched on a few pieces that focus on our town’s “affluence,” as if it were a negative. There are many, many more concerning issues. For example, read the transportation section with pricey proposals for widening roads for bikes and pedestrians, while simultaneously calling for traffic calming which requires narrower roads. It also bemoans the traffic density in the village centers, resulting in safety hazards in cut-through neighborhoods. Note to planners: increasing housing density in the village centers will only exacerbate that.
Please take a few minutes and look at the Master Plan. There is a link from the Town of Groton webpage, and a link to send comments. The planning committee will be voting on this plan on 1 March, and their vote is the one that matters.
Sincerely,
Jenifer Evans
24 Smith Street
(5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)
Loading ...
Related posts:
- Dear Editor: What Inspired A Master Plan “News Analysis” That Included Misunderstandings of Contents, Purpose, and Implications?
- Master Plan and Town Center Workshop Meetings Set
- Dear Editor: Sacred Heart Site Deserves Voter Support at TM
- Dear Editor: I’m Disappointed in Harrington Support of Gambling
- Dear Editor: About That ‘Farmers and Mechanics’ Cutting Plan
Good job Jen..but you already know what I think. The most gory detail listed is “changing land use regulations”. They are treating the Master Plan as a social justice experiment, scary stuff indeed! But thats only becasue I have a heart of stone
Perhaps, to make your job a little easier down at the assessor’s office, residents, before entering, can stamp their house lot and # on their foreheads. So, when they walk in, all you have to see, in your assessment, is the number, and enter it onto your spreadsheet. And, if the resident is a person of color, wearing a construction worker’s shirt, or the apron of an artist, she might have the good sense to paint the number in white, so as to have it show up a little better on her dark forehead, and thus to assuage any chagrin you might feel for having to stare social diversity in the face. For, as we know, there are people, including yourself, who “did not come to this town for social diversity.” If a resident wears a bracelet “support our schools” showing her commitment to the “collective moral” of keeping our schools healthy, perhaps they get a bonus?
Yes, thank you for the enlightening, expanded view from the assessor’s chair.
And, for God’s sake, you are right! Regardless of what thousands of cities and towns across the commonwealth and the country are doing to adapt to climate change, declining reserves of fossil fuels, declining availability of fresh water, oceanic death, etc., let’s just put aside those pesky scientific details and numbers, in our assessment of what is and what should be, for all time. After all, these changes and declines have nothing to do with the overall health and future of our schools, or our tax base, right?
Please take a few moments to check out what Seattle is doing, through its Happiness Initiative. Follow the links and take the survey which helps people to measure the health and happiness in their communities through measuring far more than simply the material wealth of a town. It takes about 15 minutes, and is well worth it. http://www.sustainableseattle.org/sahi
Ms. Wiesner,
I read your previous letter on this issue and realize that you and I are unlikely to see eye-to-eye on this matter. But I did not choose to mock you with nasty stereotypes nor make assumptions about your intellectual capacity based on our differences. It appears you are very open to sociodiversity, but not so open to diversity in opinion. That’s unfortunate.
To be clear, I am not a racist, nor have I ever judged people by their net worth, employment, education level, or whatever you are implying. Nowhere in my letter do I bemoan what diversity we have in our town, nor do I express concerns with increasing diversity. BTW, the sociodiversity being championed in the master plan is specifically a wider range of incomes, not racial, religious, cultural,etc. My concern is with changing the master plan specifically to accomplish this, and the willingness to adversely affect the quality of life of current residents to achieve this nebulous, ill-defined goal. I do not believe that increased population, increased taxes, and increased traffic density in the centers including a change in character of the historical district will improve the quality of life for current residents.
Regarding your repeated concrens for global climate change, simply stated, I am not a believer. I do have a science background and have been following the scientific data, including the satellite atmospheric temperature data, since the late 90s. I am not uneducated or science adverse as you imply. You clearly believe and are motivated to act. I respect that. But given I don’t believe, I am not willing to change 50+ years of town planning to accommodate your beliefs.
My hope is that residents will take the time to read the proposed master plan. Perhaps I am in the minority. It wouldn’t be the first time. But there is also a chance that you are in the minority. The planning board is accepting comments on the plan through March 1 after which they will vote to accept it or not. Their vote is the final vote – not the town meeting ratification. Now is the time for residents to decide whether they like this new direction or not.
Peace,
Jenifer Evans
I apologize, Ms. Evans, for any unintended disrespect, or a mocking tone. I am sure we can find some common ground, given time and patience, and, as you note, a respectful tone. With regard to climate change, species loss, oceanic death and many other issues that sustainability tries to address, if you are not a believer, or you don’t yet have the facts, I encourage you to learn about these issues, and how they are affecting us all, right now, and in the near future. For, if you are to address sustainability, critique it as a paradigm or an overarching theme, it really helps to have at least a working knowledge of these issues. They are not issues that require the faith of a believer They are facts, based on science, ecology and physics that require an open mind toward learning and understanding, and then taking steps to adapt and plan for a better future than the one we would have if we ignored them. Please, if you have the time to take the survey I mentioned above, it would be great to hear what you think, along with your thoughts on The Happiness Initiative.
Again, apologies if my tone was offensive.
Peace to you, too.
Lisa Wiesner
“unintended”? Really?!? You just lost all credibility on this issue.
Hi Again Ms. Evans,
I just want to clarify, too, that my point was not to imply racism, but to encourage the idea that we value fellow citizens not just by what they can pay in taxes, but what they contribute as community members, in all of the jobs and roles we fill, at all stages of their lives. When we encourage socioeconomic diversity, we are talking about economic diversity and diversity of colors, creeds and ethnicities, because they are all inter related. How else do we as a community express the diversity of our values, but to provide opportunities for all of those members of our community to flourish? Just a thought. Have a good day.
Lisa
I agree that you did not imply racism – you came right and openly accused Ms. Evans of it. And by extension – anyone whose opinion of the master plan differs from yours. Given this unfounded playing of “the race card”, why should anyone take your climate change charge seriously? Your insistence on physical over intelectual diversity comes off as superficial and offensive.
I have to echo Ron’s thoughts. The original response was well crafted to single out an individual and call them a racist with overtones of accusations of anti-semitism.
How do we express the diversity of our values? A start is not to attack people with values that diverge from ours.
Jon
Before we all pile on Lisa for what she said let’s examine what preceded it. Ms. Evans has stated that she feels that a moral collective is something that we should be skeptical of. Then she goes on to question sustainability, and diversity. It was not Lisa’s opinion that Ms. Evans was advocating a viewpoint, which would encourage less diversity and a wealthy ghetto, it is the clearly stated opinion.
When it comes to planning we need to accept the role of the majority. We are a town of diverse constituencies and not everyone is going to be pleased by the outcome of decisions. This does not mean that forward progress should be avoided. An election occurred in which a majority of voters placed certain individuals in position to make decisions. Then the officials asked for our opinion and based on their judgement and the voices of those present came up with a plan. This did not come out of thin air.
If we continue to try to supplant the processes that are in place and adjudicate these issues online, we will simply get all tied up in knots and not be able to make appropriate decisions. I am certainly in the camp in which I am less concerned with my tax rate and more concerned with quality of life issues. These include but are not limited to a strong school system, a friendly and welcoming community, and a respect for the earth. I am deeply concerned that sacrificing any of these on the alter of fiscal policy is shortsighted and will back fire.
While we will continue to disagree we need to be respectful. This does not, nor should it mean, that we shy away from calling out an opinion which is unkind or simply incorrect.
Yes, I question when someone tells me it is “our collective moral”, especially when that line is used to justify imposing that person’s belief system on others. Defining a collective moral is like choosing a religion — you have yours, I have mine.
To be clear, I never questioned sustainability or sociodiversity. That’s not my concern. More, less, same — doesn’t matter to me. Reality is that sociodiversity is not an issue that I considered when choosing a place to live. I focused on town character, neighbors, schools, price, crime, nature, access to my job, etc., and I’ve been happy with my choice. (Note to Ms. Wiesner — I took the Happiness Initiative survey — seems I’m a very happy person who is very happy with my town as it is.)
My concern is when an assumption is made, then stated as fact, and used to justify changing 50+ years of town planning, and changing the town that I am happy with. The assumptions made in this proposed master plan are that we must seek sustainability, and that sustainability can not be achieved without sociodiversity. Therefore, we must accept an increase in property taxes, increased population, increased traffic density, and a significant change in our town center to achieve this newly defined goal. While sociodiversity does not drive my happiness, positive or negative, I can assure you the other issues do.
Regarding the role of the planning board, while it is true they are an elected panel, that does not mean they are in a position to do as they feel best without input from the town, nor that we should just accept it. The planning board recognizes this, they encouraged people to participate, and now they are asking for feedback on their proposal. My letter is encouraging people to take a look and provide that feedback.
Peace,
Jenifer Evans
At the risk of being insipid, I just want to apologize again for not choosing more carefully my words and trying to find a less confrontational tone. I tend to write my initial thoughts and just hit send, not aware how they may be interpreted by the reader! This is a complex issue and not an easy one, as Tim points out, to try to discuss via this medium. I REALLY never meant to call anyone a racist! I think my discomfort with denigrating the encouragement of socioeconomic diversity as some cult-like social engineering project really does make me uncomfortable, almost unsafe in some ways. If I weren’t so careless, I would have found a way to express this more productively.
I wish we could see the encouragement of socioeconomic diversity not as a drain on taxes but try to discuss the ways that it might enrich our community in so many ways. I guess affluence and true wealth are also a matter of perspective, and a question of values. I am not sure that taxes would increase if more affordable or higher-density houses are built. Wouldn’t the smaller footprint of a smaller, higher-density residence mean less resources used overall and less of a drain on the community?
I see building socioeconomic diversity as building resilience in our community. I think of it like an ecosystem; the greater the number of parts or players, the more able the system is able to withstand shock or perturbation, and the more productive the system is as a whole. I also think that we are ALL paying more and will continue to pay more, in taxes, in the form of many other currencies, for the kind of life we have been living, and the one we wish for in the future.
Maybe we pay more in the form of taxes, because we can do so with our position and affluence. Maybe it’s the community that houses the landfill which eventually gets the trash leaving Groton, and pays more in pollution and higher rates of asthma. Maybe it is the mother who has to drive a crazy commute to her job in Groton, and loses in quality of life because she cannot afford a humble abode near or in the town in which she works. Maybe it’s the kid who has never stepped foot on a farm or walked in a deep woods before and loses out on the quality of life that those things can bring, because his family cannot afford to live anywhere but in inner city. Or maybe it is Nature that is paying for all of the debt we have been stacking up in the many forms of decline that are now occurring across the planet. And, isn’t Nature the source of all the capital which we are discussing?
I don’t like to think of what the world is going to be like in 50 years, when there are no more fish in the oceans. 50 years, at the rate that we are going! And we talk about 50 years in terms of the master plan, as if it is some immutable document, not susceptible to change.
How can we approach community with more than just material currency as a parlance? What about the social capital and creativity that may be clouded by our insistence on the material wealth that money and property values have come to mean for us? To me, one way of looking at sustainability is to recognize that we live in a world with limits, and that we have been running an economy that totally externalizes the costs to the Earth’s systems in order to continue to live under the impression that we can continue to do so, and are not simply living on borrowed time, way past the Earth’s capacity to support us, in our lifestyles. And, we recognize that we will need to find ways to share more and more of less and less.
Can’t we do it creatively and in celebration of that diversity. Can’t we find room in Groton for more diversity, more affordability, or even discuss the values and forms of diversity, without seeing it as just some attempt to push one person or group’s “collective moral” on the rest of us? If we continue to denigrate socioeconomic diversity, do we actually allow for the seeds of ethnocentrism, elitism, and racism to grow? I am reminded of what someone said about the new Mill Run housing development; “But, oh my, what kind of people might that attract?” Do we really want to, if unwittingly, encourage this kind of ‘collective moral’?
Lisa,
I haven’t noticed where anyone said anything to “denigrate socioeconomic diversity”. You’re assiging motives which are not in evidence. This works to undermine your argument.
Ron,
The original message points out several passages from the master plan which Ms. Evans finds objectionable. These were chosen for specific effect, and the passages reference, “sociodiversity” and “social equity”. Let’s not get too cute with the language, the intent is obvious to all readers.
Even if the intent was not apparent, the outcome of an overarching focus on “taxes” “price and crime” has the inevitable outcome of encouraging a homogeneous economic and cultural community.
Tim
“Gory details… support my fears.”
“and we need to increase our sociodiversity and further social equity, even if it does not “bode well” with the current homeowners. This is our “collective moral.” The proposed solution to this perceived problem is to spur population growth with affordable apartments and condos in the village centers, after 50+ years of specifically trying to avoid that.
“I am now being told that what drew me to town is wrong, and that it is my collective moral to increase sociodiversity”
“It appears it is also my collective moral (and most likely yours, too) to fund this drive for social equity through our increased property taxes. While taxes are not a specific part of the plan, increased taxes will be the net effect. Increased population growth leads to an increased burden on the schools. Just a few years ago the future showed a decrease in students, and therefore, Prescott was closed and is no longer an option for housing students. Increased population, equals increased students, equals increased need for new schools, equals debt exclusion and increased property taxes. Furthermore, if the new housing is “affordable” as per the goal, the residents will be paying less per person in property taxes than the average resident in the “expensive” homes, yet the cost to educate the students is the same. The result is more of that collective moral to share the wealth.”
Ok, Ron, perhaps you can glean some light on the subject. For me, it is hard, reading Jennifer’s letter, quoted above, to come to the conclusion that increasing social and economic diversity, “the perceived problem,’ is anything but a drain and a costly “social engineering” project meant to push some negatively associated collective moral down our throats.
Perhaps, you take away an entirely different message, implied or otherwise. Please enlighten me.
Is denigrate is too strong a word? What about belittle? Or, oversimplify? underestimate?
This 218 page document is a lot to absorb and I expect few Groton Residents have taken the time or initative to read it. I do not have the time to read every word, either, but i did take a few hours to get the jest. In short, I concur with Jenifer Evans assessment on the Groton Line. This plan seeks to impose the social values of the authors on an entire town. I have been in business for many years. I have never seen a successful plan on this scale – and certainly not an effectively deployed plan – that made no attempt at the outset to cost it out.
Hi. I’m a Groton resident and a person of color. I live in a culturally diverse neighborhood (Academy Hill) where we have families from a wide range of cultures and ethnic backgrounds–my nearest neighbors have 5 different native languages. What we don’t have is a wide range of economic diversity. I came to Groton because it was an affluent town with lovely homes, good schools, and a beautiful landscape. I don’t want to see a lot of affordable housing going up, so that my tax dollars will subsidize education for low-income families. There is plenty of affordable housing in the surrounding towns of Shirley and Ayer.
Furthermore, much of the affordable housing going up in Groton is being done carelessly and without regard to natural resources (building in wetlands and harming wildlife, construction accidents harming the environment, and so on). To keep prices low, the affordable housing developers clearcut all the natural features of the lot, strip it of its soils, and cover the ground with chemlawn, destroying the wildlife corridors and natural habitat for the beautiful wild animals that we are so lucky to have here in Groton. So I don’t see how affordable housing is advancing the goals of sustainability.
From what I’ve seen, social equity and environmental sustainability are often very much at odds. Having them tied together in the same plan makes the whole plan fairly incoherent.