Letter to the Editor- Curt M. Freedman

The following  "letter to the editor" was submitted to LongmeadowBuzz by Curt M. Freedman

______________________________________________________

24 Ridge Road
Longmeadow, MA 01106
Tel: 413/567-1175
Email: CMF.Freedman@gmail.com
May 18, 2015

Dear Longmeadow Residents:

I wish to thank all the dedicated citizens that attended the Annual Town Meeting on May 12th and voted against Article 23.  As it was rejected by an overwhelming margin, the interests of our community were clearly served by its defeat.  For anyone not familiar with Article 23, it called for an amendment to our General By-Law that historically established water and sewer fees based on measured use.   If the By-Law amendment had passed, the plan was for our water/sewer bills to instead have an unprecedented $360 fixed fee plus a $2.00 charge for each unit of water used.  Many homeowners would have received unjustified increases ranging from 30% to 145% or more.  Even worse, the policy change would have hurt conservation efforts by diminishing the incremental unit costs from $5.13 per ccf to $2.00 per ccf (1 ccf = 748 gal).  A unit of water conserved would then only save  $2.00 instead of $5.13 ($2.78/ccf water + $2.35/ccf sewer); any investment in low flow toilets, water efficient washing machines, rain barrels, conservation shower heads, or other household water conservation equipment would have had an economic payback some 2.5 times longer.  The proposed rate was clearly anti-conservation and also served to economically dis-incentivize the investment and installation of wells for irrigation. Even though Article 23 was defeated, our existing water and sewer (W&S) rate inequity problems regretfully still persist.  Our on-going sewer cap policy causes those who water their lawns to unfairly pay additional sewer fees since excess sewer fees are paid for watering grass and washing cars with no water ever discharging into a sewer drain pipe; such unfair policies are a classic example of Undue Rate Discrimination.  The existing sewer cap policy typically results in a town-wide subsidization of approximately $585,000 per year.  As ridiculous as it may sound, the truth is that some 33% of our total sewer department revenue is actually paid by people watering their lawns.  The excess sewer revenue from residential customers watering their lawns also serves to subsidize the sewer bills of the non-residential customers with homeowners paying for 33% of the sewer bills for all the commercial customers in town.  Yes, our local restaurants serving $50-$85 per plate sushi, steak, and lobster tails are having their sewer bills subsidized by the homeowner watering their subsistence vegetable garden and/or lawn.  In order to establish fair water rates for all customers, residential customers need to be given the opportunity to utilize irrigation water meters since the cost of service for irrigation (only water, no sewer service) is different than household water use (water & sewer).  Irrigation water meters will provide the only method of accurately documenting irrigation water use which is approximately 41% of the total annual use.  Our present sewer cap policy creates an unfair level of subsidization and would not be consistent with MGL c. 41: § 69B  and MGL c. 83: §16 that require that W&S charges be  “JUST (FAIR) AND EQUITABLE.”  In addition, since we as a community voted to establish the water and sewer departments as “Enterprise Funds” under G.L.c.44, § 53F1/2, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue guidelines state that, “The fees imposed for any municipal service must comply with legal standards.” Irrigation water meters have been utilized by commercial customers in Longmeadow for several decades.  Irrigation meters for residential customers are common practice in Agawam, Chicopee, Ludlow, and Springfield; it is long overdue that Longmeadow W&S policy become “just and equitable.”

The Longmeadow Finance Committee in their recent 2015 annual report stated the following, “The Finance Committee encourages the Select Board (Water & Sewer Commissioners) to form a (Water & Sewer) advisory committee to (i) review the anticipated capital improvements; and (ii) make recommendations for the proper rates to build a capital improvement reserve fund.”  As an economic good, our water/sewer system must be managed and maintained properly and remain financially accessible through fair and equitable rates for maximum utilization to minimize cost. 

Please contact our Water & Sewer Commissioners, who also serve as our Board of Selectmen (specific email addresses may be found at: www.Longmeadow.org OR snail-mail to: Longmeadow Town Hall, 20 Williams Street), and let our elected officials know how you feel on these issues.

Vote NO on Article 23

Below is the proposed ARTICLE 23 (including summary) that will be considered at the Annual Town Meeting on May 12.

To see if the town will vote to amend as follows Section 2-601(f) “Water and Sewer” “Water Service” of the General Bylaws of the Town, or take any other action relative thereto.

1. Delete the phrase “and shall charge for water by measure” from the first sentence of Section 2-601(f) so that, as revised, the Bylaw would read as follows:
   
   The Department of Public Works shall install and maintain in proper working condition a water meter on each service. The DPW shall require a separate connection for each estate.

The bylaw, as currently written, only allows water related costs of the Water Department to be covered through metered water usage. The change will allow the Select Board, acting as Water and Sewer Commissioners, options on how to cover the costs of the Water Department.
___________________________________________

The following was submitted by Curt Freedman of 24 Ridge Road, Longmeadow, MA for consideration....

Citizens of Longmeadow:

There are several reasons that everyone should have concern for Article 23 at this year’s town meeting that will call for an amendment to our General By-Law that has historically established water and sewer fees based on measured use.   Chapter 600, Public Works and Services, section 2-601.f states, “The Department of Public Works shall install and maintain in proper working condition a water meter on each service and shall charge for water by measure.” The By-Law amendment proposes to eliminate the phrase, “and shall charge for water by measure.” 

REASON 1)  If the By-Law amendment passes on May 12th, the plan is for our water bills to have an unprecedented large fixed fee plus a charge for each unit of water that is metered (variable cost).  Our Board of Selectmen have again demonstrated that they do not understand fair and equitable water and sewer (W&S) rate policy.  We will likely never forget the ascending water rate fiasco that the Board of Selectmen unleashed on our community in the summer of 2007 promising only a 15% increase while many customers instead received increases of 40% to 90%.  On 3/4/08, at a special town meeting, the Selectmen then had to give back some $300,000 in refunds to all the customers that were over-charged.  Before our public confidence on W&S rates could be restored, the Selectmen and/or Town Manager then established the Water & Sewer Advisory Task Force to think of other ways to unfairly raise our rates for water and sewer.  The Task Force report confirmed the concerns that I had brought forward to the Water & Sewer Commissioners in 1997 for the sewer cap policy.  Our on-going sewer cap policy causes those who water their lawns to unfairly pay additional sewer fees since excess sewer fees are paid for watering grass and washing cars with no water ever discharging into the sewer.  The existing policy can result in an annual subsidization of over $500,000.  Although our sewer rates are advertised to be $2.35/ccf, the true sewer rate is approximately $3.25.  Based on the Water and Sewer Advisory Task Force report that was submitted to the Board of Selectmen in 2008 and 2011, to make up the $500,000 subsidization, new rates were recommended that would convert the annual customer charge of $34 to a fixed charge of $360 plus a water use charge of $2.00 per ccf (1 ccf = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons).  It is noted that the above water fee would have to be modified from $2.00/ccf to $2.30/ccf to meet our present revenue requirements.  The problem with this new recommended format is that many customers that have chosen to have minimal outdoor watering could face annual increases of 30% - 145%.  A typical household with one person may have their yearly rates go from $173 to $423, an increase of 145%.   A typical household of two persons may have their rates go from $311 to $487, an increase of 56%. The average household of approximately three persons may have their annual rates go from $408 to $531, an increase of 30%.

REASON 2) The Task Force report specifically stated they did not evaluate how the new policy would affect commercial, institutional, or municipal customers.  Based on detailed analysis, those increases could be 12%.  Not only have the non-residential customers not been notified of such increases, many cannot even speak at the Town Meeting to represent their interests because they may not be registered voters in Longmeadow.  It is unlikely that our public schools budgeted for such increases in their water bills.  I feel that the complete lack of notification and the displacement of appropriate due process are grossly unfair to the non-residential sector and are not democratic.

REASON 3) A much reduced incentive for conservation is another problem with the water and sewer rate changes.  The proposed By-Law amendment could change our incremental unit costs from $5.13 per ccf to $2.00 per ccf.  A unit of water conserved would only save  $2.00 instead of $5.13; any investment in low flow toilets, water efficient washing machines, conservation shower heads or other household water conservation equipment will now have an economic payback some 2.5 times longer.  The new rate is anti-conservation and also serves to economically dis-incentivize the investment and installation of wells for irrigation.

REASON 4) The Task Force in trying to justify the $360 fixed fee, inappropriately claimed that households that do not consume a minimum quota of water do not create enough revenue and do not pay their fair share to the system.  The Task Force is saying that normal household water use is not enough; the Task Force view is that significant irrigation water use is necessary to provide enough revenue to pay a customer’s fair share.   There is no relevance to the Task Force philosophy what-so-ever.  Based on long-standing internationally accepted policies for utility rate design that have also been adopted by the American Water Works Association, preferred utility charges are based on overall variable or marginal costs; the best tariff policy bills a customer for the quantity of product/service that is used, period.  There is no minimum fixed fee other than a customer charge which traditionally is just the cost of administrative billing and the annualized cost for maintaining the meter.  The Task Force with its recommendation for approximately half of the W&S budget to come from the $360 fixed fee per household apparently did not understand, recognize, or observe that for other utilities such as natural gas, or electricity have only a modest customer charge plus a variable charge, billing customers simply for what is used.   A utility based rate is like traveling the Massachusetts Turnpike; a toll is charged only when a vehicle travels or uses the roadway.

REASON 5) Based on globally accepted standards for utility tariffs, the six fundamental features of a good rate design include the following:  simplicity, revenue & rate stability, fair cost apportionment, avoidance of undue discrimination, efficiency, and conservation.  Our present sewer cap and proposed fix fee rate with the By-Law change are:  Revenue and rate unstable, characteristic of unfair cost apportionment, discriminatory, and discourage conservation. 

REASON 6) The traditionally and properly accepted practice is to establish a COST-BASED approach and calculate water/sewer tariff components that are based on marginal costs, not lump sum fixed amounts.  The amended policy is inappropriate and in fact is a textbook example of UNDUE RATE DISCRIMINATION.  A lump sum fixed fee rate creates an unfair level of subsidization and would not be consistent with MGL c. 41: § 69B  and MGL c. 83: §16 that require that W&S charges be  “JUST (FAIR) AND EQUITABLE.”  Furthermore, as Longmeadow’s W&S accounts were approved in 2007 at Town Meeting to be established as “ENTERPRISE FUNDS,” we are also required by law to abide by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision: Emerson College v. City of Boston (1984), that mandates that our W&S sewer fees be fairly substantiated; the revenue from one customer cannot unfairly subsidize the costs of the utilization of the system for another customer.  The judges ruled that an unfair subsidization effectively becomes a “TAX” and no longer a “FEE” and would be contrary to Massachusetts law.

Yes, we need change, but the Task Force recommendation requiring our By-Law to be amended is not the answer.  In order to establish fair water rates for all customers, residential customers need to be given the opportunity to utilize irrigation water meters since the cost of service for irrigation (only water, no sewer service) is different than household water use (water & sewer).  Irrigation water meters will provide the only method of accurately documenting irrigation water use which is approximately 40% of the total annual use.  Irrigation water meters have been utilized by commercial customers in Longmeadow for several decades.  Irrigation meters for residential customers are common practice in Agawam, Chicopee, Ludlow, and Springfield; it is long overdue that Longmeadow W&S policy become “fair and equitable”.

As an economic good, our water/sewer system must be managed and maintained properly and remain financially accessible through fair and equitable rates for maximum utilization to minimize cost.  A By-Law change is clearly not needed, a 2nd water meter for irrigation is; we also need our Water & Sewer Commissioners to hold public hearings to exchange information with the public and to enable fair opportunity for all customers to have their interests represented.  A new rate policy allowing irrigation water meters will establish “fair and equitable” water and sewer charges as well as create reasonable pricing signals for conservation and would be consistent with: MGL c.41: §69B, MGL c.83: §16, and Emerson College v. City of Boston.

In 2007, the Water Commissioners with the ascending rates, punished people for watering their lawns, now with the proposed $360 fixed fee, they want to punish people who don’t.  Let us restore fairness, equity, and clarity to our water and sewer rates, please vote “NO” on Article 23 at the May 12th Annual Meeting.

-Curt M. Freedman, PE, CEM, CEA, LEED AP

Certification:
~ Registered Professional Engineer in:  CT, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, & VT
~ Certified Energy Manager (CEM) as endorsed by the Association of Energy Engineers
~ Certified Energy Auditor (CEA) as endorsed by the Association of Energy Engineers
~ LEED Accredited Professional as endorsed by the U. S. Green Building Council
~ Adjunct Professor of Energy Management, Western New England University

The Mansion on the Green

This column was submitted by Betsy Huber Port for posting on the LongmeadowBuzz blog.

_____________________________________________

What is the Fate of the Mansion on the Green? 

Quality schools are what we are known for, plus good services, a fine quality of life, safe neighborhoods and an appreciation for history.  And on the surface this place looks pretty perfect lately, enveloped in a cool blanket of snow.  Almost perfect that is.  Look across the way from our local Community House and what do you see? A beautiful and stately old house that looks sad and abandoned.

What is the story?

Long ago in 1884, the house was built for Yale trained minister Samuel Wolcott. The house was built for Dr. Wolcott by his sons Henry and Edward. Reverend Wolcott lived in the house only two years and died in 1886. Soon after in 1889 it changed hands to a new resident named State Senator George Brewer. For over twenty years Brewer owned this magnificent mansion on our town green until after WWI.

Mrs. Mary Ida Young, wife of Wilbur F. Young the inventor of the liniment Absorbine Jr. became the new owner in 1922. Founded in 1892, this local company enjoyed success for more than 30 years before she moved to Longmeadow.  Following the stock market collapse of 1929, the house was secured by iron grids on the windows, and a fortune of valuables was stored inside.  The 10,907 square foot home with 11 bedrooms survived the long years of the Depression and also the WWII era.

At some point in the 1970-80s this antique house was restored to its former glory. I can only imagine the grandeur of the formal dining rooms and wonderful parties and events took place there. There is a uTube video showing how the place used to look.  House tours occurred to benefit Center School, but in the past five or so years the place has been slowly deteriorating.  It is my hope that this house can be saved. The bank that foreclosed on the property does not seem to be caring for it. J.P. Morgan Chase has a responsibility to protect this asset, don't they? As we all know, our homes need love and maintenance, especially in the bitter cold winters.  What can be done to prevent further rack and ruin? What can town leaders do? Can local state representatives and preservationists step in? This house has "lived" for over 130 years - but this year could be one of its last. Someone with a vision could transform it again, but they must act swiftly.  This is sad and tragic to see it every time I drive north or south on Longmeadow Street. Ideas anyone? Let's think outside the box to preserve our history! What are the priorities of our community? It is a piece of our history and I hate to witness its complete destruction!

Betsy Huber Port

Here is a link to a video of the house during earlier times.
 

What happens next at the Longmeadow Shops?

Now that the zoning change required for expansion of the Longmeadow Shops was approved at last night’s Special Town Meeting, the Planning Board will be waiting for the detailed plan to be delivered by Grove Property.

 Longmeadow Planning Board, Bruce Colton, Chair (center)

 
According to Walter Gunn, long time member of the Planning Board, an application for expansion of the Longmeadow Shops places the entire Shops facility under scrutiny through a rigorous site and design review.  This opportunity will allow for public input and action to correct any present as well as future deficiencies with the site including such issues as traffic, parking, noise, light and odor.  Article XI (Site and Design Review) of the Longmeadow Zoning By-laws states:  The purpose of this section is to protect the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town by providing for a review of plans for uses and structures which may have significant impacts.

Mr. Gunn also stated that the west lot parking covenant at the Longmeadow Shops will be examined by the Planning Board’s land use counsel as to its relevance in calculating required parking spaces.

Where the Planning Board can lose control of the development is through the applicant’s choice to seek the avenue of special permitting / variance authority held by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).  The ZBA authority can create restaurants, new parking spaces through Article XII.b.3 or allow signage specifically forbidden under the Longmeadow Sign By-Law.  Hopefully, public scrutiny of any such maneuvers would cause the ZBA to proceed on the side of caution.

Steve Walker/ The Longmeadow Shops Responds....

We’ve been very clear and transparent as to what our intentions are with the proposed expansion at the Longmeadow Shops--21,000 square feet of new retail space including a CVS drive-thru as well as parking and pedestrian safety improvements.



I wanted to provide you some background to educate you and followers of your site in regards to our parking lot.

In 1982, the former owner of The Longmeadow Shops agreed to construct a parking lot on land owned by the shops. The lot would be used by the shops and available to the public for parking. We remain grandfathered into this commitment that the former owner made to the town.

This isn’t a municipal parking lot, but rather a lot that we own and pay taxes on that is also shared with the community for parking. What this means is that parking isn’t restricted to only patrons of the shops.  A good example would be to come to the shops on any Friday night during the football season or even weekdays during the spring or fall during athletic practices or games, and you’ll notice that a significant amount of the public utilizes the lot.  This arrangement has been discussed publically and is fairly well known in town. We welcome this traffic to our shops. 

In the past, we’ve had parking attendants during heavy parking periods in an effort to prioritize parking closest to our retailers for patron parking and closest to the fields for event parking.

The parking spaces created by this agreement have always been included in the parking calculations for the shops by the planning and zoning boards over our 20 years of ownership.

We appreciate your sites attention to tomorrow night’s important vote, and also appreciate the opportunity to clarify the facts to your readers.

Steve Walker/ The Longmeadow Shops

Town residents deserve transparency...

It seems that we have been here before with expansion plans for the Longmeadow Shops….

Some interesting information has surfaced in the last couple of days including some court documents from more than 30 years ago.  It turns out that the Longmeadow Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board filed a complaint in the Hampden County Housing Court seeking to nullify a Zoning Board of Appeals decision allowing S. Prestley Blake to expand the west end of the Longmeadow Shops.  Here is a link to a Springfield Union news article (February 27, 1982) about this controversy.

As a result of this court suit, the owners of the Longmeadow Shops agreed to the following (excerpt from Housing Court Dept Case No. LE-1914-L-82, signed and agreed- July 7, 1982):

1. The parking lot as presently constructed, both on the business-zoned land and residential-zoned land, shall be at all times open to the public and shall not be restricted to patrons of the so-called Longmeadow Shops.

Here is an aerial photo of the Longmeadow Shops showing the specifics of this agreement as best can be determined.

[click photo to enlarge]

 
It is interesting that the Longmeadow Shops and/or the nearby retail establishments in recent years have occasionally hired private "attendants" to police their parking lot and to block town residents and others from parking in this west lot during sporting events if they were not customers of the Longmeadow Shops.  This issue is particularly of consequence during Friday night Longmeadow HS football games.  This enforcement was deemed necessary because of the increased parking needs for the patrons of Max Burger and other establishments.

In addition, the Longmeadow Shops did not allow the School Building Committee to use any of their parking for teachers/ students during construction of the new high school forcing the town to construct temporary parking lots.

With the limited parking spaces available in all of the surrounding retail areas (including Big Y and the Williams Place mall) there is nothing to prevent these other businesses from asking their employees to park in the "municipal lot" "public lot” so as to provide more space for their own customers.

Questions

1. Is the current owner of the Longmeadow Shops (Grove Property Fund) still bound by this Hampden County Agreement for Judgment?  If not, why not?
2. In consideration of the increased retail space being proposed, how can this “municipal” "public lot" be considered at its full potential when calculating the retail space/ parking ratio?
3. Why was this court agreement between the Town of Longmeadow and the Longmeadow Shops not disclosed during the Planning Board Public Hearings?

We need to hear some answers before we vote at the Special Town Meeting on February 3.

What are we voting on at the upcoming STM?

If you think that we are voting on Tuesday night to build a new larger CVS store with a drive-through pharmacy or a new JCrew store, you are incorrect and should read the rest of this article.

The vote at the Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, February 3 is solely to approve the proposed zoning change from the current residential zone to a commercial/business zone.... Nothing else!  This vote does not involve approval of the actual project details such as the new larger CVS store with a drive-through pharmacy. 

Town residents will not get an opportunity in the future to vote on the specifics for this project.  If this zoning change is approved, town residents will only be able to make comments at a future Planning Board Public Hearing but will not be able to vote yes or no on the specific project.

Here is the warrant article that town residents will be voting on at Tuesday's meeting:

 _____________________________________________

ARTICLE 1.
To see if the Town will vote to change the zoning district in which the land described in this article is located from the Residence A District to the Business District, or take any other action relative thereto:

Beginning at a point at the northwest intersection of the existing 20’-0” easement with the property line of Parcel 2 as previously described by a curve to the left having a radius of two hundred eighty-six and 82/100 (286.82) feet, thence EASTERLY on other land now or formerly of Daniel E. Burbank, Jr., et al, eighty and 55/100 (80.55) feet; thence NORTHEASTERLY on land now or formerly of Daniel E. Burbank, Jr., et al, one hundred thirty-one and 90/100 (131.90) feet to land of The First Church of Christ Scientist; thence SOUTHERLY on said land of The First Church of Christ Scientist three hundred and 03/100 (300.03) feet to Williams Street; thence SOUTHWESTERLY on said Williams Street one hundred thirty-six and 16/100 (136.16) feet; thence SOUTHWESTERLY on said Williams Street and by a curve to the right having a radius of five hundred eighty-six and 82/100 (586.82) feet, one hundred sixty-four and 81/100 (164.81) feet to the southeasterly corner of the first parcel of land herein described; thence NORTHERLY on said first parcel of land herein described, three hundred and 3/100 (300.03) feet to a point of beginning. Consisting of 79,230 square feet (1.819 acres).

The property is now zoned residential; the shops would like to expand. Currently, business use is not allowed in a residential zone. A zone change to business is needed to expand.  This article requires a two-thirds vote.

_____________________________________________

If this zoning change is approved, Grove Property will then move forward with detailed design work followed by a Planning Board "site and design" review.  During this review, the Planning Board will make specific recommendations for changes in the design and/or stipulations before they grant approval and issue a building permit.  If the Planning Board wants to see specific design changes, Grove Properties can either accept them or take the town to court for mediation of the differences.

Another option is that Grove Property can simply decide to cancel the project and then sell the now commercially zoned property to a different developer.  Who knows what might happen then.....

Many people are voting YES because they want a drive-through CVS or JCrew.... this is not what is being decided on Tuesday night. 

One Longmeadow Planning Board member- Heather LaPorte at the January 7 Public Hearing stated she was in favor of the zoning change because she liked the idea of a CVS with a drive-through pharmacy window.  Based upon her comments this appeared to be one of the primary reasons that she voted YES to recommend the proposed zoning change.  It turns out that her thinking was not much different from the other Planning Board members based upon their comments.  The Planning Board should have been voting on the proposal to make a zoning change for this property to commercial from residential and its impact on the surrounding area not the merits of the proposed project details.

In a recent letter-to-the-editor Select Board member Alex Grant wanted Grove Property to put their promises in writing.  That is not going to happen.  Grove Property positioned the presentation of this project such that they could offer all sorts of  "benefits" upfront if town residents voted to grant the zoning change.   There is no guarantee that the Grove Property plans as proposed will be implemented.

Come as an informed voter to the Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, February 3 at 7 PM in the Longmeadow High School gymnasium.

Get It In Writing!

This Letter-to-the-Editor was submitted to the Longmeadow Buzz blog by Alex Grant, town resident and Longmeadow Select Board member.

__________________________________________________

When the Longmeadow Shops zoning change request goes for a vote again on February 3, voters will not be called upon to approve or disapprove the Shops’ expansion plan.  Instead, the question will be whether to allow Grove Property Fund LLC or some subsequent owner to pursue commercial development more or less as it sees fit.

Even so, Grove Property and its allies have made some big promises: a drive-through CVS, the continued existence of the CVS on Longmeadow Street, and maintaining the farmer’s market in the parking lot of the Shops.  From these promises, we have been led to believe that nothing but goodness will come from the zoning change and the expansion plan.  There is just one catch.  None of the promises I just mentioned are in writing, and they are not guaranteed.

If your reason for voting for the zoning change is a drive-through CVS, if you truly believe that the infirm and the sick will benefit from such a mega-pharmacy, wouldn’t it be a good idea to know that such a CVS will in fact occupy that space?  When Grove Property came before the Select Board in July, a contract with CVS for the drive-through pharmacy was not in place.  At the November town meeting, the contract was not in place.  In January, when Grove Property came back before the Select Board, the contract was still not in place.

Nonetheless, the representative of Grove Property tells us that CVS is itching to expand its operations at the Shops and to build a drive-through pharmacy.  If that is so, and this expanded CVS is the key selling point to the whole proposal, why is there such uncertainty?  The most we have heard is that Grove Property will call CVS after the zoning change is passed.

Similarly, Grove Property tells us that CVS has no plans to close its Longmeadow Street location if CVS expands at the Shops.  Grove Property’s representatives have said that CVS sees the two locations as two separate markets.  But nary a word has been heard from CVS.  There is nothing in writing that says that the Longmeadow Street CVS will survive. 

Finally, we have been told that Grove Property plans to allow the farmer’s market to continue its operations with the new configuration.  If that is important to you, why not get that promise in writing?  Why not make the commitment enforceable?

Business interests like Grove Property and CVS make important decisions when they have signed commitments in writing.  We should do the same.  Why allow these corporations to change their minds, if these promises are important to voters’ decisions?  Make no mistake, Grove Property wants to do a deal with Longmeadow voters.  Voters have this one point of leverage to obtain the things that are important to them.  Our decision to allow the zoning change would be binding on us and essentially irreversible.  In exchange, are we going to accept vague assurances on the essential points of this deal?

When handling our own money, we would never enter into an important deal without getting the deal signed and in writing.  Why should we be so trusting, so credulous, so careless when we enter into a deal on behalf of the Town?

Personally, I don’t see the crying need for this expansion, and I fear that expansion will exacerbate the existing traffic and parking problems at the Shops, especially since a traffic study has not yet been done.  I believe that Longmeadow can be a great place to live without this added commercial development, and I also believe that ever-increasing traffic congestion represents the biggest threat to our quality of life.

But I recognize that others are more bullish on the benefits of this plan, if it is enacted as it has been presented.  If we are going to bear the burden of more drivers on our roads, if we are going to run the risk that this expansion will require other, expensive design changes to the road system around Big Y and the Shops, why not insist that we get what has been promised to us?  If we are going to vote for this change because people want a drive-through CVS, let’s get it in writing.  If the other CVS location and the farmer’s market are part of this deal, let’s get that in writing too.  If Grove Property and CVS cannot put their assurances in writing, then we should vote no.

__________________________________________
 

Alex J. Grant is a member of the Longmeadow Select Board. 
His email address is agrant@longmeadow.org.

Vote No to Shops Expansion on February 3

This "letter to the editor" was submitted to the LongmeadowBuzz blog by Paul Santaniello, Longmeadow resident and member of the Longmeadow Select Board.

_________________________________________________________
 

I plan on voting NO on the expansion of the Longmeadow Shops on February 3rd.  I plan on voting NO because we are asking to make a decision that will have a long term impact on Longmeadow, without knowing what any of the potential impacts are until we approve the expansion.  The process is backwards.


At the Planning Board Public Forum on January 7th, there was much discussion of the process.  One point hit home more than any other.  Paraphrasing a Planning Board member, “we may decide, after the traffic study is done, we may approve only one store instead of three.  We would most likely be sued…”  In other words, unless the Planning board approves what the petitioners want, we have the potential to be sued as a town.

That aside, we have no idea of  the traffic impact by adding three stores (four really when the CVS is four times the size of the current location) to the already busy Bliss/Williams intersection.  We have no idea of any potential infrastructure improvements that the Town (you and me) will have to pay for to alleviate any potential issues.

The process is backwards.  It’s just the way it is.  I have full faith in the Planning Board to do their best to protect the Town from any potential negative impacts, but once Town Meeting approves the zone change, it places the Town in a defensive position.  That is a terrible position to “negotiate” from.

If the owner of The Shops wants to be the true blue property owner it claims to be, why don’t they offer numbers as to the potential traffic that the expansion will generate?  If they are looking to CVS, JCREW, et al, to occupy the new space, why don’t they ask for the average trips per hour they expect (data the store have) and provide that now?

While we talk about a drive thru CVS and all the medical advantages of having one in town, the Manager of The Shops has stated publicly that CVS will not commit to a lease without having the zone change in hand.  Nor do we really know any of the other two stores coming in.

At Town Meeting, you are NOT approving a CVS.  You are NOT approving a JCrew.  You are voting on a massive extension of the one of the most traveled roads in town.  There is no guarantee that CVS or any other pharmacy will be placed there. Don’t let this misinformation confuse what we will be asked to vote upon.

While I believe the process is backwards, I also believe there could be a little more truth in the details of what will actually happen if this vote passes. The Shops have done a great job in marketing the expansion.  I just wish they would have spent half as much time finding out and telling us what the facts are.

Vote NO on February 3rd.

Paul Santaniello
179 Edgewood Ave
Longmeadow, MA

Vote NO on Proposed Zoning Change

This "letter to the editor" was submitted to the LongmeadowBuzz blog by Jayne K. Benmosché of Longmeadow, MA.

 _________________________________________________
 

1. A NO vote would assure that additional traffic congestion in and around the three schools located near the shops will not be  additionally challenged, thereby not endangering the safe passage of school children to/from Blueberry Hill School, Longmeadow High School, and Williams Middle School.
2. A NO vote would maintain that the current CVS at the shops not be moved to the proposed residential lot with a larger building and a drive thru pharmacy.  There are two CVS stores in our town which are more than adequate to service the resident’s needs.  CVS is NOT a preferred pharmacy for disabled persons or seniors on Part D prescription coverage.  Most seniors with AARP currently drive two miles from the shops to Walgreen’s in East Longmeadow or use the pharmacy at Big Y for their prescription needs.  Another concern would be a Minute Clinic added to the store’s services.  Sick individuals belong in a physician’s office not in a busy store with shoppers.
3. A NO vote would not compromise the residential areas that abut the property.  Those homes located on Williams Street would have increased road traffic, delivery truck noise, and increased difficulty gaining entrance and exit of their homes.
4. A NO vote does NOT interfere with Grove Properties ability to redesign the current parking structures of the shops.  They do NOT need additional stores to accomplish this. This area has had a substantial increase in traffic since adding another restaurant on site.  Grove Property knew in advance this would create increased need for additional parking spaces.
5. A NO vote would allow our town to safely utilize ALL the current stores in Williams Place, Big Y, and the Longmeadow Shops.  Increasing the size of the current shops would interfere with the existing flow of traffic that traverses between the both sides from Bliss to Williams Street and vice versa.  There are currently 12 entrances/exits in the oval with two crosswalks.
6. A NO vote would allow consideration be given to hiring an urban planning company to get a traffic safety study done BEFORE a zoning change is approved.

Please attend the Longmeadow Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, February 3 at 7 PM in the Longmeadow High School Gymnasium and VOTE NO!

Jayne K. Benmosché
Longmeadow, MA