The Reading Post accepts Letters to the Editor. All letters must be signed. The Reading Post reserves the right to edit or not publish any letters received. Letters do not represent the views or opinions of the Post. editor@thereadingpost.com
Dear Editor,
Copied below is feedback I sent to town officials and the CPDC regarding my support for the Downtown Lynchpin + Transitional Residential plan presented on July 31, which I would also like to share publicly:
Dear Ms. Wellman, Mr. MacNichol, and CPDC board members,
I’m writing to share some of my thoughts on the MBTA communities alternatives presented on July 31st. I’m personally just catching up now, as I was out of town during the recent meeting.
I strongly support the Transitional Residential (“Partner 3”) plan of those presented. I believe in incremental growth as the best way forward for our town and the best way to balance the needs of current residents with the urgent need for more housing in the region.
The status quo is untenable, and so alternatives which effectively do nothing (“Existing Developments Only”) feel like a silly approach that amounts to sticking our heads in the sand and hoping that other communities create the slack that is required (and hoping that this non-solution is deemed compliant). I think every community should do their part to address the housing crisis and we should proudly be part of the solution.
The Eastern Gateway and South Main/Home Goods alternatives are better in the sense that there is a possibility for actual increased housing capacity. However, I think these plans would result in mid-rise and large scale developments, which are more disruptive to neighbors and town infrastructure, and which most residents have said they don’t want (per the survey done last year). The benefits would also be realized by commercial property owners and developers, while the costs would be borne by Reading residents.
The Transitional Residential plan is the best option for Reading. It would allow current residents to add units to their property for older or younger generations of family, an additional income stream, or as an option to more comfortably age in place. Redevelopment would happen at a more natural pace that is easier to plan for, with decisions made by individual homeowners. And the benefits of increased land values and redevelopment opportunities would go to current Reading residents rather than outside developers. As for how this would affect the look and feel of existing neighborhoods — I’ve lived in neighborhoods like this before (with a mix of 1-4 unit properties) and it feels just like a regular residential neighborhood. It’s a great way to add density with minimal changes to existing neighborhood character. Personally, I would have preferred a larger area of transitional residential (after all, why should only some residents enjoy the expanded freedom to do what they like with their property), but I understand this is a compromise solution based on feedback from other residents.
I hope to see some version of this Downtown Lynchpin + Transitional Residential plan submitted and approved by Town Meeting in November. Thanks a lot to Andrew MacNichol and the CPDC for all the hard work in running these scenarios, vetting them, and doing such a great job with community engagement for this difficult process.
Best regards,
Liam Loscalzo
Federal St
