How Did We Get the Density Articles, and How Can We Make Better Decisions?
——-
How Our Town Government Is Structured
Arlington is a town, not a city. We have an administrative Town Manager, not a Mayor. The Town Manager is appointed by the Select Board - 5 people who essentially volunteer, and are elected by the residents and voters. The Manager works for you only through your vote for the Select Board members and their instructions to him.
The Town Manager hires Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) staff, and appoints Arlington Redevelopment Board (ARB) volunteers (except for one ARB position, which is filled by a State appointee to provide some independence), and directs the work of both employees and volunteers.
A citizen-proposed Article for this past spring’s Town Meeting would have made the ARB elected, instead of appointed. The proposal failed - it wasn’t supported by the Town and was voted “no action.” Additional draft proposals suggested a partially elected board, to insure resident/business/voter representation.
The Rise and Fall of the Density Articles
In April 2019, Town Meeting discussed many zoning-related Articles that DPCD developed and the ARB largely supported. After much debate, overwhelmingly focused on the process behind drafting the Density Articles, and their potential effects, the Chair of the ARB was forced to withdraw his board’s support from most of the Density Articles. Changes to zoning bylaws must be made by Town Meeting, or for certain changes, by the voters during an election. When Articles at Town Meeting lack the support of the relevant Town board they come under, Town Meeting votes “No Action” to say “No."
The Director of DPCD, Jennifer Raitt, had worked with several non-Arlington organizations - the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Metro Mayors’ Coalition, and Citizens’ Housing And Planning Association - to develop and promote the Density Articles, at the direction of our Town Manager, Adam Chapdelaine. In late 2018, select groups of people were invited to planning sessions held at Town Hall over the draft Density Articles. The CHAPA-facilitated meetings were not widely advertised and attendees were generally favorable to the proposed draft rules, although the meetings were officially open to anyone who wanted to attend.
The Director of DPCD also sits at ARB meetings, and presented the Articles to the ARB for their review and eventual approval. DPCD, at Town Manager direction, conducted the Density Articles through the ARB process, revisions, and to the ARB vote, supporting most of the proposals, just prior to April Town Meeting.
Resident and Business Response to the Density Articles
ARFRR and others in Town learned about the proposed Density Articles and were concerned that the benefits were too few, with a lack of data supporting the proponents’ claims of these benefits, and that they presented the possibility of many unintended consequences. ARFRR members and others attended ARB and public information meetings and worked to raise awareness among residents and businesses. At Town Meeting, the message to DPCD, the Town Manager, and indirectly to our Select Board was: “These Articles were not put together in an appropriate fashion - go back and improve your process, involving voters and other stakeholders before you return with zoning changes.”
ARFRR and others in Town learned about the proposed Density Articles and were concerned that the benefits were too few, with a lack of data supporting the proponents’ claims of these benefits, and that they presented the possibility of many unintended consequences. ARFRR members and others attended ARB and public information meetings and worked to raise awareness among residents and businesses. At Town Meeting, the message to DPCD, the Town Manager, and indirectly to our Select Board was: “These Articles were not put together in an appropriate fashion - go back and improve your process, involving voters and other stakeholders before you return with zoning changes.”
Video of the Town Meeting No Action Vote:
This process highlighted the limited control that residents and businesses have over the Town.
The Zoning Process Should Work Better For Residents and Businesses
Normally, we assume unelected Town officials act as our agents, via the elected members of Select Board. We pay their salaries and they get on with the process of managing the affairs of our town on our account - for us. This past year’s experience suggests that changes may be necessary. The ARB’s focus on working for the residents and businesses is suspect, with public meetings where the public isn’t always allowed to speak, allowing major mistakes like the building at 887 Mass Ave - one of the first new “mixed development” projects. The ARB’s dependence is obvious - it’s appointed by the Manager, except for the sole State appointee.
The work by DPCD to push proposals that did not originate with residents is a concern. The Town Manager’s direction for DPCD's work as exemplified in his July 22 Select Board and October 22 ARB presentations, which advocated for outside-groups’ goals of increased density in Arlington, are at odds with the wishes of residents as shown at Town Meeting. The Select Board have carefully avoided ruling on the matters of the Density Articles. Since they are the only part of the zoning process the voters can influence, or remove, we hope they will apply brakes to DPCD and the Town Manager’s office.
Looming Trouble for Arlington: Loss of Local Control of Our Zoning Through Gov. Baker’s Bill H3507
At the same time as there is concern about who benefits from the work of the Town Manager and departmental staff, Governor Charlie Baker is proposing removing zoning bylaw voting requirements in Town Meetings across the Commonwealth. Currently, it takes a vote of 2/3rds plus 1 person in Town Meeting to change zoning bylaws. Under Baker’s plan, it would be reduced to a simple majority vote. Zoning bylaws are tricky to change for a good reason: they are like the constitution of our neighborhoods. They determine what may be built and where, providing protections from inappropriate development for all residents. What developers and urbanization forces call our ‘paper wall’ laws can either support the aspects of a community that its residents value, or allow those aspects to be destroyed. Indirectly, they influence whether the traffic is terrible and the bus is overcrowded, how many parks and how much green space we enjoy, and whether we have true input into shaping our community.
Making these important bylaws easy to change would be like making the US Constitution easy to change. It sounds great, until you realize the risks. Any changes to our zoning bylaws must be well planned, thoroughly discussed, and broadly supported.
