[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, can you hear me?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you, Jean Izzo, 35 Power Street. First off, you continue to refer to current zoning not being built. However, the own lot sizes are not in alignment with the intent. So one would have to stack parcels to build by right right now, where your new zoning is significantly decreasing the lot square footage requirements, and you could in fact subdivide and multiply the density result. So it's incredibly disingenuous to imply that the decision will not open the floodgates of development. A good number of Medford residents continue to say here tonight that they aren't feeling heard and that we need to slow down. As someone who has worked in the industry for decades, I find it abhorrent that we continue to move forward without the necessary studies that determine the feasibility to your concepts and proper iterative feedback loop. It's rapacious and reprehensible that we need to move at a speed that placates, quote, developers. And I use that term loosely. Make no mistake here tonight, predatory developers are already door knocking, turning up the heat. There's money to be made, hand over fist, buy right in some areas, thanks to the effort so far. And our at-risk and marginalized neighbors many of which who cannot speak up, especially in this current political climate, will be displaced, even though the studies that you guys continue to point to for justification call out that this should be mitigated. It isn't, it won't, and no one should pretend otherwise. You're putting developer profits over residents' needs, considering future potential affluent residents at the expense of the current marginalized residents, and you're putting the cost of development on residents and not where it belongs with the developer flippers. all of which will land us with a new age city on antiquated infrastructure. The MBT 3A zoning requirements, which we complied with as of December of 2024, sets a density rate of 15 units per acre. Your proposal for our city at last calculation is five fold over the state requirement. Your slide deck scenarios aren't even remotely in alignment with how a developer will approach their project and financial modeling decision making, no matter the spin. Thank God, or those playing developer may have taken notes. For some neighborhoods you continue to move the goal lines, and the public continues to get information, not in advance but instead during the meeting. It's not proper, it's not inclusive, and it's not just. Mass General Law 40A section 5, thank you, requires the zoning text be provided in advance. Please begin to do that. We need to be in alignment with the industry best practices and the secretariat and agency requirements. All have been outlined in previous emails to you guys under separate cover by resident industry experts. So echoing my fellow Medforians, I would like to say, again, we need to slow down, pause, pull the information into a digestible format, and take it back up. Expertise is the ability to simplify the complex, and this is what our residents are looking for. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Good evening, can you hear me now, Madam Chairperson?
[Jean Nuzzo]: All right, let me get closer to my computer, is this better? Yes, thank you so much. I'll just hang close to my computer, thank you. I appreciate that. I'm at Parr Street in Medford. I do have a letter prepared, but I have a few comments that I'd like to make. I think it's important as we speak as a community to just be thoughtful. And I would like to share for people's consideration, it's great to kind of be wishful about what we want to do. But the sad fact here in Medford is that the city of Medford, whether we like it or not, does not attract transformative developers in any way. We simply attract flippers. And our most recent example of that was the four-acre, approximate four-acre RFP in Medford Square. We had a room full of developers that were promised friendly PDUs and autonomy in what they were going to build there. And at the end of the day, we had a response from two, and they weren't even really the true transformative developers you see respond in other cities. So we can talk about acres of land and what we'd like to do and what we'd like to see and what we think is going to happen. But I'm telling you as someone who is in the industry, and I have many a conversation with a variety of people in the industry, there is a very low interest in Medford for anybody but a flipper. And so what we are developing here in this programmatical exercise in rezoning is nothing but what is friendly to flippers and speculative developers who are going to harass the residents as they do their monetary build-outs for their speculative projects and force long-time residents out. I just would like to, if you'll give me the little bit of latitude, I have a handful of other thoughts. I want to displace people of this idea that if you build a four or a six-story building, that it's going to get an elevator and you're going to be able to travel where you are. ADA compliance isn't driven by height, it's driven by statutory requirements, and it is a percentage of build-outs. It is a percentage of what is done. So each project will net a different type of ADA compliance. You might not be able to visit your friends because there might not be an elevator or your friends might be on the ground floor in a back area. So this idea that every new building that's coming in is going to be 100% ADA is not accurate. Also new construction does not, and higher units does not necessarily equate to affordability. If you don't hit the 10 unit threshold, you get no affordability. We saw that on Winthrop Street in West Medford, where they blasted away the land and were creative about how they subdivided it. And the city got zero affordable units in an environment where the units are selling at almost $2 million each.
[Jean Nuzzo]: One final thought. It is really troubling to me that we continue to talk about these things without studies and without using our best practices because we are going to be holding the bag for a lot of it. But the example I will leave you with is our plumbing. In most instances, the plumbing and the utilities that run in our street are over 100 years old. It is not an incremental proposition. It is an overarching proposition when we're looking at the zoning. I will submit the rest in writing, and I appreciate the latitude. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Good evening, can you hear me now, Madam Chairperson?
[Jean Nuzzo]: All right, let me get closer to my computer, is this better? Yes, thank you so much. I'll just hang close to my computer, thank you. I appreciate that. I'm at Parr Street in Medford. I do have a letter prepared, but I have a few comments that I'd like to make. I think it's important as we speak as a community to just be thoughtful. And I would like to share for people's consideration, it's great to kind of be wishful about what we want to do. But the sad fact here in Medford is that the city of Medford, whether we like it or not, does not attract transformative developers in any way. We simply attract flippers. And our most recent example of that was the four-acre, approximate four-acre RFP in Medford Square. We had a room full of developers that were promised friendly PDUs and autonomy in what they were going to build there. And at the end of the day, we had a response from two, and they weren't even really the true transformative developers you see respond in other cities. So we can talk about acres of land and what we'd like to do and what we'd like to see and what we think is going to happen. But I'm telling you as someone who is in the industry, and I have many a conversation with a variety of people in the industry, there is a very low interest in Medford for anybody but a flipper. And so what we are developing here in this programmatical exercise in rezoning is nothing but what is friendly to flippers and speculative developers who are going to harass the residents as they do their monetary build-outs for their speculative projects and force long-time residents out. I just would like to, if you'll give me the little bit of latitude, I have a handful of other thoughts. I want to displace people of this idea that if you build a four or a six-story building, that it's going to get an elevator and you're going to be able to travel where you are. ADA compliance isn't driven by height, it's driven by statutory requirements, and it is a percentage of build-outs. It is a percentage of what is done. So each project will net a different type of ADA compliance. You might not be able to visit your friends because there might not be an elevator or your friends might be on the ground floor in a back area. So this idea that every new building that's coming in is going to be 100% ADA is not accurate. Also new construction does not, and higher units does not necessarily equate to affordability. If you don't hit the 10 unit threshold, you get no affordability. We saw that on Winthrop Street in West Medford, where they blasted away the land and were creative about how they subdivided it. And the city got zero affordable units in an environment where the units are selling at almost $2 million each.
[Jean Nuzzo]: One final thought. It is really troubling to me that we continue to talk about these things without studies and without using our best practices because we are going to be holding the bag for a lot of it. But the example I will leave you with is our plumbing. In most instances, the plumbing and the utilities that run in our street are over 100 years old. It is not an incremental proposition. It is an overarching proposition when we're looking at the zoning. I will submit the rest in writing, and I appreciate the latitude. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I think it will actually be brief. Jean Nuzzo, 35 Power Street. I'll iterate what I've iterated before at other meetings. It is important to execute the necessary studies because while it's nice to have blue sky ideas for what needs to happen, these areas do have some vibrancy. And while you would bring in potential other businesses here, you will get rid of the mom and pop stores if you do not appropriately plan for that. In the age of information, willful ignorance really shouldn't be dismissed. There's a lot of opportunity here, especially in proximity to the transit station that, as someone else has said, is in fair proximity to Boston. Many people use this rail, and the opportunity for many more makes sense. But we also need to be purposeful, unlike what we did to Salem Street. We should be a little bit more careful elsewhere. And definitely there is a discriminant and different handling of these neighborhoods. The tone and the tenor that's being discussed here is nothing like what was discussed on the other side of the city. And I find it unjust and reprehensible. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Mr. President, can you hear me okay?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. First, let me take the opportunity to also extend my condolences on the loss of your friend. My name's Jean Nuzzo. I live at 35 Parris Street in the heart of the Glenwood neighborhood being discussed tonight. The recently released state housing report indicates that we need 220,000 units in this state by 2035, but it doesn't indicate that all of that needs to come from the city of Medford and specifically this Glenwood neighborhood. Affordable housing is important, but so is the question, affordable to whom? I want to be clear and on the record. A yes vote tonight will gentrify out the marginalized in our environmental justice neighborhood currently living in affordable homes in favor of developer profit and the affluent who want to come here. I find the need to again iterate tonight that parcel along side streets should not be included in corridor nor urban zones as side streets do not qualify elsewhere in the city in proximity to actual transit. The MBTA is not improving our transit here, they're splitting our single bus route and assuming everyone is going to be able to take a bus is wishful thinking. The differently abled don't get the same spoons as you do, and not all of them get a blue placard. The fact that we are on the precipice of this proposal to further densify and exacerbate the inequities and density in this area relative to the remainder of the city is deeply unjust. that we are going to pass the zoning without even the most baseline of industry standards and documentation such as existing conditions, infrastructure impact, and constructability within your proposed minimums, which will open the city to a variety of liabilities you're going to learn about later on, and not even the most rudimentary of an urban master plan is mind-boggling. The studies that need to be done aren't completed parcel by parcel. That is death by paper cuts, and it puts the price squarely on the taxpayer. Cambridge, yes, has just passed landmark changes to zoning with four-story multifamily by right, but it's a 5,000 square foot lot, and here we're at 3,000. So even Cambridge thinks it's utterly inappropriate to have anything less than 5,000 square feet anywhere. Truly, we must take a step back to move forward properly and assure that we're following industry best practices, looking out for the marginalized within our community, all while figuring out the way to find the balance between affordability, density, human scale development, activated places, placeholders, and an interesting place to live. I appreciate the time. I know that this won't happen swiftly for some, but the idea that it won't happen swiftly in Glenwood is a farce. For the developers, it's all about the financial modeling and return on investment. As I look out my window tonight, I see a new backhoe across the street in the side yard on the corner of Tainter. The lot is clear and ready for their permits in the coming days. So yes, it in fact is coming to Glenwood and it is burgeoning and just waiting for those new permit applications to be able to be filed. Thank you very much.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate it. Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I'm a direct abutter. I live in the heart of the Glenwood neighborhood. Yes, we are a neighborhood and we have been for decades, proudly so. I appreciate the work that's been undertaken to incorporate our modifications based on feedback presented. and the updates to the presentation, including selected language for consideration. In reviewing the most recent documents for Salem Street Tonight and the upcoming neighborhood zoning maps, I want to point out that there are discrepancies that persist across those documents, including parcels near mine. And therefore, I would highly recommend a widely available unified map that's thoughtfully colorized to assure accessibility and ease of interpretation for folks. There's a lot of yellows and oranges. In the absence of this map and observation of the above discrepancies, I find the need to again iterate that parcels alongside streets should not be included in the corridor zoning as they don't qualify elsewhere and shouldn't do so here either. I must say as an industry professional, the fact that we are on the precipice of voting this through to further densify and exacerbate the inequities and density in this area relative to the remainder of the city without even the most baseline of industry standard documents, such as existing condition analysis on infrastructure impact, constructability within proposed minimums, and not even the most rudimentary of an urban master plan is mind boggling. Truly, I think we must take a step back to move forward properly and ensure that we're following industry best practices that are guide rails to success and ensures that implementation doesn't gentrify out long-term residents that are currently affordably housed. You simply can't make accurate assessments or shape a clear image of the impact of these zoning changes without a comprehensive analysis. And the incremental studies, development by development, doesn't work relative to sweeping rezoning such as we're doing now, full stop. It's unbelievable to contemplate all this being moved along without these typical work products and in such short order. Neighboring cities take years to do this. And speaking of neighboring cities, Cambridge, who just passed landmark zoning for four-story multifamily buy right, their lot size is 5,000 square feet. But here in Medford, we're looking at three. And that is their deeply educated baseline, 5,000 square feet. So it's amazing to me. I appreciate the time. And I hope that you will think about this because we have the neighborhood zoning coming next that will also deeply densify and has been iterated by other folks. Medford isn't going to solve the housing crisis.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can you wrap up in the next 10 seconds, please? Sure. The goalposts keep moving. It's a very complicated process. And please consider the quality of life for our neighborhood as well, because we are already more dense than other areas of the city. Thank you so much.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate it. Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I'm a direct abutter. I live in the heart of the Glenwood neighborhood. Yes, we are a neighborhood and we have been for decades, proudly so. I appreciate the work that's been undertaken to incorporate our modifications based on feedback presented. and the updates to the presentation, including selected language for consideration. In reviewing the most recent documents for Salem Street Tonight and the upcoming neighborhood zoning maps, I want to point out that there are discrepancies that persist across those documents, including parcels near mine. And therefore, I would highly recommend a widely available unified map that's thoughtfully colorized to assure accessibility and ease of interpretation for folks. There's a lot of yellows and oranges. In the absence of this map and observation of the above discrepancies, I find the need to again iterate that parcels alongside streets should not be included in the corridor zoning as they don't qualify elsewhere and shouldn't do so here either. I must say as an industry professional, the fact that we are on the precipice of voting this through to further densify and exacerbate the inequities and density in this area relative to the remainder of the city without even the most baseline of industry standard documents, such as existing condition analysis on infrastructure impact, constructability within proposed minimums, and not even the most rudimentary of an urban master plan is mind boggling. Truly, I think we must take a step back to move forward properly and ensure that we're following industry best practices that are guide rails to success and ensure that implementation doesn't gentrify out long-term residents that are currently affordably housed. You simply can't make accurate assessments or shape a clear image of the impact of these zoning changes without a comprehensive analysis. And the incremental studies, development by development, doesn't work relative to sweeping rezoning, such as we're doing now, full stop. It's unbelievable to contemplate all this being moved along without these typical work products and in such short order. Neighboring cities take years to do this. And speaking of neighboring cities, Cambridge, who just passed landmark zoning for four-story multifamily buy right, their lot size is 5,000 square feet. But here in Medford, we're looking at three. And that is their deeply educated baseline, 5,000 square feet. So it's amazing to me. I appreciate the time. And I hope that you will think about this because we have the neighborhood zoning coming next that will also deeply densify and has been iterated by other folks. Medford isn't going to solve the housing crisis. The goalposts keep moving. The goalposts keep moving. It's a very complicated process. And please consider the quality of life for our neighborhood as well, because we are already more dense than other areas of the city. Thank you so much.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Great, thank you. I appreciate the time to speak. My name is Jean Nuzzo. I live at 35 Parish Street. I often speak on these matters and the impacts to our resident, and I'll send my comments along, my technical comments along for the record, but tonight I'm going to do something unusual, and I'm going to speak for myself, because you've made me a direct abutter in this. We've lived at our home for decades here on Parris Street. It's a full south-facing home with sustainability built that way before it was a trendy thing. Recently, we lost all the nearby 400-year-old silver maples and our summer shade to development. We've also lost a good portion of our sun path across all seasons to a new structure. The impacts of development on us have already been significant. Our costs to run our home have increased deeply already with heating and cooling and ice removal we never needed before. In your plan, you are now zoning that same parcel next door, similar in topography and size to mine, actually my lot is larger, to an MZ1IZ zone. With mechanical, ornamental, and not exercising the loopholes in your plan changes, I have a building potentially plus or minus 70 feet tall next to me. Three and a half stories alone, never mind six, would completely blot out my sun path entirely. My home will go dark. I will lose the balance of what remains of my trees, bushes, gardens. The nearby wildlife that we harbor will be obliterated. No solar and other green options for us. So I would like to know, why does 31 Paris Street get an MZ1 with IZ status and I do not? You've come down the street farther than anywhere else to get to that lot, so I'd like to understand why he gets it and I don't. And lastly, I'd like to thank the City for their religious reminders of what developers want at every meeting, for regularly stressing the needs of the developer profits over our environmental justice neighborhood and our neighbors, Thank you, Alicia. I'm sure the moneymakers appreciate your advocacy. Maybe look up what a betterment is and how cities leverage them to offset the cost to the residents. Maybe advocate for us. I'm so sorry.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I'm done. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can you hear me now?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, Madam Chairperson. I'm sorry to speak again. This is Jean Nuzzo at 35 Parrish Street. I'm so sorry, we've tried to- Just hold on, let me, I didn't hear a response to my question relevant to 31 and why they were zoned for multi-use with incentivized and my parcel was not. And I would like that answer. It's not a new statement. It's just pointing out the fact that this zoning consultant and this team did not answer my question. They came well beyond where they've gone everywhere else to that parcel that's smaller than mine and gave him inclusionary zoning and stopped there. And I'd like to understand from them what their criteria was for doing that, if you don't mind.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Paris Lake, France, they're 31 and I'm 35.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can you hear me now? You can. Oh, beautiful. Thank you. I apologize. I'm going to keep my camera off just because I have bandwidth issues. My name is Jean Nuzzo. I'm a Medford resident on Parris Street. I just want to point out that between 2019 and 2024, Tufts Center graduate enrollment rose by 25% or 1,300 students. Over the next few years and into 2026, Tufts anticipates an additional 600 students per year, which would bring them to 6,600 or more, depending upon their enrollment trajectory. So to say that this will offset housing by 660 units is inexact and disingenuous. I'd also further like to point out that we're in the middle of a once-in-a-lifetime rezoning effort, and many areas within our city, specifically Mystic Ave and Salem Street, are being rezoned specifically for dorms, frats, and sororities by right. And so Tufts University has a choice here to be a good neighbor throughout its city or to encroach upon the quiet enjoyment of its residents. The last points I'd like to make is that In Cambridge, Councilor Sullivan drafted a bill for the state legislator repealing Harvard's exemption from Dover. And the bill was passed in 1981 and signed into law on July 5th by Governor Edward J. King. And it essentially says that when a university is one of the largest landowners and is behaving like a developer, Dover does not protect, but they need to be treated like a landowner. And I would urge Tufts, as it has these opportunities that will come forward, to be a good neighbor to the people who reside here well beyond four years. I thank you for the time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: How are we doing this time?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Okay, great. I'll be quick. Thank you. Jean Izzo, Parris Street, Medford. This is in my neighborhood. I'll be quick. A thoughtful approach to this application review is not stalling. It assures that we are acting purposefully and we are acting thoughtfully. and it avoids repentance at leisure. Historically in Medford, when we take things at face value swiftly, we are left in a position often where we are then having our enforcement team who are understaffed trying to go out and deal with issues. So please let us not mistake a thorough review of the applicant and its business proposition for putting individuals under a microscope. That is not what is happening here. Thank you very much.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, thank you. I don't need three minutes. My name is Jean Nuzzo. I live at Parr Street in Medford. I just have a question. I'd like to know where the technical documentation and feasibility study and projected budget for this can be found for consumption. Is it available online or does a FOIA request need to be submitted?
[Jean Nuzzo]: The technical documents? I'm sorry, I'm deferring to, excuse me.
[Jean Nuzzo]: And the feasibility study through the chair.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I would, and thank you for the answer.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jeanne Iselle 35 Paris Street. I'm an industry professional for several decades, but I'm here as a director. I have a few thoughts. They're a little disjointed, I apologize. But I want to understand what the actual and specific criteria you are using to separate what parcels benefit from this zoning bump, and specifically your IZ status and what ones don't. I want to point out that ground level commercial plus two is the basis for human scale development and activating spaces. So it's perplexing to me that there are any areas where you're looking to delete or disincentivize that specific model in any way, shape or form. Three, I want to let you know that there is nothing you are creating here that will lend itself to a BI district. And I tell you that as someone who has spent over 25 years as an industry professional identifying site selection and overseeing commercial construction buildup for hundreds of clients in every vertical there is. I want to point out that this is an environmental justice neighborhood according to the GIS mapping. And it's made up of exactly the demographic we look to not gentrify out. And your proposal on Salem Street will gentrify this neighborhood. Make no mistake about it. I'd like to point out to you that the criteria you use relative to Salem Street regarding interconnection you outlined for Mystic and Salem would also apply to Route 60 that goes to Arlington and Playstead that goes to Route 38, whose exact intersection sits on an MBTA train station. So I'd like to know when we can look forward to this MBTA zoning to be applied over there. And then my last thought for you tonight is when you really know your subject matter, you can easily simplify it to make it accessible and inclusive for all. And I would encourage you to do that because most people in the city do not have the luxury of understanding zoning. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, my name's Jean Uzo, I live on Paris Street. I'll try to keep my comments brief. In this moment, there are many points I could make about the opioid crisis, the applicant, our floor treatment approaches, the challenges that those with addictions face daily and how they're intensified in the early stages of recovery, and how at risk these folks are from predatory bad actors. I could speak about Glenwood, its diversity, culture, socioeconomic, and otherwise. how negatively transformative this type of application could be to us, our elderly and at risk, our small businesses, and most importantly, our students. But I'd like to take a moment and celebrate the unity of our community that we have felt in this past week and a half. I've seen a coalescing in our Glenwood neighborhood and across the city that I haven't seen in a very long time. Regardless of station, cultural affiliation, or party if you have one, hundreds have stepped forward in support of Glenwood, in support of good treatment options, and changing the way we talk about those struggling with addiction and those seeking recovery. And most importantly, in support of working together for the benefit of the community at large. So, so far in the week we've collected about 550 signatures on our free petition and voter registration is working to diligently advise us as to how many of those are registered voters. The circulating petition is asking you all, elected and appointed officials, department heads, boards and commissions, and the administration, to join together with the community stakeholders and subject matter experts to have this very necessary hard conversation about this deeply important matter and codify a methadone zoning ordinance that will not leave location, proximity, operating requirements, and so much more to chance. and ordinance that will mitigate the guesswork of applicants, alleviate the level of stress that comes with uncertainty for residents, and assure that no other neighborhood has to go through what we are experiencing right now. As a community, and in our zoning laws for years, we've said we think it's important to outline our expectations around where and where not liquor could be sold. and more recently served. We've also determined that due to the complex requirements around cannabis, that they rise to the level of having their own ordinance. The signatories on the aforementioned petition, and perhaps others, believe that we should be just as purposeful with the controlled substance such as those that come with medically assisted treatment programs, a.k.a. methadone dispensaries or clinics if you so choose.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Our rights don't end where those who are suffering from addiction begin, and we can find the middle ground. I implore you, along with 550 of my fellow Medfordians who've signed, to please help us all do the work and get this on the books. I assure you our community will be better for it. And I just want to take a moment and thank you for the additional motivation you provided tonight in not allowing us to speak. You've really energized us and enlisted us even more. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Jean Nuzzo, Paris Street. A good portion of Medford isn't a middle-class city at all. It's a working-class city, and historically comprised of immigrants. More than 40% of our residents that live in Medford live below the poverty line. Many work two to three jobs. And most homeowners, they're just renting for the bank, and they only get 90 days before their eviction. I personally have worked in construction and development for over three decades and managed budgets in excess of $1 billion. That's billion with a B. New development isn't going to meaningfully contribute to our cash flow when this city doesn't properly and timely capture its LA-13 and LA-15 new growth. For those of you who don't know, the mass LA-13 and 15 new growth forms allows us to capture new construction and major renovations outside of the 2.5 cap you're talking about tonight. It's important that newly renovated parcels are assessed at 15% of their market value, and 30% when the paperwork catches up. It's a significant quantity of product properties and a good deal of money that's left on the table that you're asking us to make up for. It's inequitable. We don't properly capture land values on condo conversions. We don't properly levy permitting fees based on current market values for construction projects. We don't properly stack our grants for maximum value and impact. And that's just scraping the surface of our mismanagement. through the chair. For those of you that think these examples aren't enough to consider and address first, and unequivocally believe that we still need these exclusions and overrides, I have good news for you. The 2.5 cap isn't a parcel level cap, it's a municipal level cap. So lead by example. Reach out to our assessor's office and ask them to have your home reassessed to market value. It's a near immediate impact. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, good evening. Thanks for letting me speak. I've been reading about the new Medford parking office since they took over from pocket fit. Many, many bad situations and no one is listening to the citizens of Medford, something has to change with this department. as it is not going well. Here is my street sad story. On the early morning of Saturday, September 3rd, Labor Day weekend, we woke up to a flood of tickets on our street. Some tickets said the cars belonged to Central Air. Well, if that's the case and you write five, six, seven tickets with all cars saying this, you should know what street you're on. and you should find out what the problem is. You can see, I gave you all, you can see a ticket and a permit. This is one of the main reasons I said at a meeting that it wasn't a good idea to get rid of the permits tickets because these scanners aren't working properly and other reasons. But wouldn't you say what is going on? Wouldn't you stop and check it out? If badge number 111 took the time to look at the permits on all our cars, you could clearly see something was wrong with that. The scanner was reading as we all clearly had permits. We need to see some retraining done. Seems like he was told just to ticket. What a waste of taxpayer time and money. We had to take time off from work to come down and fight these foolish tickets. He has been up and down our street many times. No tickets for this. Why now? And the new park department is blaming Park Medford. After a year and a half, I have my visitor pass that says Stearns Ave. I applied for two senior passes with my license and registration that says Stearns Ave. So they do have my information. What is going to be done about this office? Enough is enough. They have had plenty of time to be up and running. The city keeps pouring money into this department and it is not working correctly. We are taxpayers in the city of Medford and don't deserve to be treated like this. I see a lot of out-of-state plates parked all over the city, especially in South Medford, but no tickets for them. And on the day in question, there were two on our street, no tickets for them. I feel like we have been targeted in South Medford, and I have never felt like that in the 65 years. The day our street was ticketed, four other abutting streets were also targeted with the same issue. Please explain to me and the citizens of Medford what can be done about this office. They also have a camera recording citizens, but do they have one recording inside the office, when they are rude to the citizens. And I would like to ask our fine citizens. If they have had a problem with this office to please email the mayor and let her know. Just one more item before I end. The PAC department now has everyone's permit passes ending on December 31st. How are they going to handle all of this at once when they couldn't handle it being staggered? That's a big question and thank you for listening to me.
[Jean Nuzzo]: They blamed Medford.
[Jean Nuzzo]: They did, they did.
[Jean Nuzzo]: So they're just going to pay the ticket, and is that how the city's getting money?
[Jean Nuzzo]: And that last picture is of a car that hasn't moved for four months. It's for sale. No ticket ever.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hello, my name is Donia Goss. I live at 26 Bradley Road. I have a disabled placard. Anyway, whenever the Chevalier Theater has a show, to having a show Friday night, Joan Jett. Great theater. Whenever there's a show, you cannot find a parking space within a quarter of a mile. And our building has 30 units. and there's maybe five or six spaces on the street, because there's no parking lot. So it's very, for me, sometimes I go grocery shopping, I come home, I go around and around and around, I can't find a place to park, and then I have to carry all, parking is unbearable. That's all. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes.
[Jean Nuzzo]: There is one handicapped spot in front of the senior citizen building, right? But there are other senior citizens that are handicapped in that building. Occasionally I will park there but sometimes I don't find a space there.
[Jean Nuzzo]: There's just not enough physical spaces.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Question on the math? Yes. No, I have a question regarding the math program. First of all, I think it's great. Thank you for organizing this. I do have a child in the fourth grade and I can see how something like this would be very beneficial to him and his peers right now. I do have a question about the children that are on IEPs. I know you talked based on this, but would it matter if they only have IEPs in reading and not math to qualify?
[Jean Nuzzo]: So that's fine. Okay. And then what about for, you know, their grade level, let's say were they within the 16 group of children, right? Will they be with peers that are at their kind of level or would they be with, you know, just a whole group of level of people in their grade?
[Jean Nuzzo]: But like, let's say like my child is on IEP, would he be with other children that are in other IEPs or will he be with somebody who is a little more advanced in math, but maybe missed, you know, some school days? And he'll be with his fourth grade peers. Okay.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you, G News on 35 Parish Street. Councilor Marks, thank you for bringing this forward. As someone who works in process regularly, I was really very disheartened by the process. I know the folks that volunteered worked very hard, but I think we could benefit as a community by something with better shoes. I would hope that we could get an answer to this. And I think we should even be looking at our parks and other facilities as well. As you say, we have a habit of making, street corners named after folks and other areas throughout our city. And I think as a community, if we have a clear understanding of what the expectation is, that helps. And then you may even see opportunity for people to step forward because it's clear what they would be volunteering exactly to do. So I think anytime you can put shape around a process, it's better. We do it for other things. We have multiple hearings. We have requirements for three hearings when we do amendments and when we're looking at implications to different projects to the city, et cetera. And so this seems to dovetail into everything else we do. So I appreciate you bringing it forward and I appreciate your position on clarity, but I definitely think it's something that's well worth looking into because personally, I would really hate to see our community go through something like that again, if we can craft a process that just provides everybody the opportunity to be heard and iterative opportunity for feedback, and that didn't happen, I think, as a community. I think folks submitted on the issue at hand, saw what the results were, and then there was no opportunity for additional conversation. And I think that that was a good part of the problem. So thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Tony, I just wanted to add that, you know, you always have a way of making parents feel safe while you're taking care of their children, and I know that.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, Dr. Grace Caldera, 33 Governors Avenue, Medford.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Next slide.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Jean Muzo. I live at 35 Parris Street.
[Jean Nuzzo]: My mom is where I get my Native American background. And we are from the Mohican tribe, which is in Massachusetts and all the way up to Winooski, Vermont.
[Jean Nuzzo]: what Member Kreatz has told us about the potential that we're seeing throughout the state to reconsider naming for Native American tribes and individuals. I look at Belinda Sutton and I look at Jean Barry Sutherland, and I wish I had known both of them because they seem to be amazing women and amazing individuals in their own right. But I often talk about things in context when we talk about history. I've spoken in the past about buildings in context and spaces in context. And I think there is a compelling context to have the school that is currently the Columbus School named for Jean Barry Sutherland. I would implore you to consider that it's not a zero sum game. There are other opportunities in this city. And had we had more time, maybe we could have even talked about a Medford week where we learn about all of these Medford individuals.
[Jean Nuzzo]: And I would encourage people to try to consider each other's positions. It's a very difficult situation and we do all have to live in this community come tomorrow morning after the choice. Thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: And both of you. Point of order, ma'am. Point of order, ma'am, ma'am. Point of order.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hello, Nicole DeMonica, 51 Burnside Street. I just wasn't going to speak tonight. I first want to say thank you to all of you for wanting to listen to us. I know this must have been hard because we do have a passionate group here. But I think what does that show is that how passionate they are. I think the people who come here and who actually voice their opinions for Belinda's son and Jean were the ones that really cared about this. I think that's what we have to remember. These are the people right here that in the community that really cared enough to come out here to tell you how they feel. That's one thing I didn't want to say. Another thing I want to bring up is that you have to also remember that a lot of people in this community are Italian American. A lot of people in this community did not want this change, but we did it because we had no choice. And then when we did, we decided to choose somebody that the children chose. The Dane children are the ones who told us Jean Barry was the person that should be chosen. So then we said you know what, if we have to choose anybody want to choose somebody who was impactful of the city. I absolutely think Belinda Sutton is she went through it. I honestly think that she deserves honor. And that but at that should be at the Royal House, but I do think the name should be gene, and that is just the reason why of all these people here, the submissions that she that was already sent into 413 or 423 people sent in surveys, which they were discredited by. That's pretty hard on them. Someone for actually to send in a survey about somebody and then to say that they're cheating. And most of those people were children who sent those in. You really have to think about that. Really. I know there's some people want certain things and I understand maybe you want certain things and you're passionate about things. I understand that. But you have to think now about the city. One thing we want to do, we all have to bring on, we want to heal. Is that correct? Is that what we all want to do right now? I think so.
[Jean Nuzzo]: One minute.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Hi, my name is Samantha Sinek and I just wanted to come and speak on behalf of Belinda Sutton. I think that the naming of the schools is not just about the person and the name, it's about the story that it tells us. And the one thing we know about Belinda Sutton is that when she tried something, she was turned away. Like we know of her because she wrote five petitions to get what she was owed. And every time she was turned away, but she didn't stop. She didn't give up. She stood up and she tried again and she kept fighting for what was hers. Now, Belinda Sutton's story doesn't end happily. I mean, she never got what she was owed. But I think that we can put her name on a building and then we can take that message to ourselves when we can learn that there are a lot of people who don't get what they're owed, and we can work to be better about that. And two, we can remember that there are a lot of people who need to remember that when the world works against them, when the universe is set against them, when the world gets them down, they can still stand up and try again. Because in the end, we can all make our mark on the world. and Belinda Sutton made her mark by not quitting. So I just wanted to speak for her name because her story is really powerful and I think I would like to see it on a building.
[Jean Nuzzo]: My name's Jean Nuzzo. I live at 35 Parris Street. Again, I just would like to remind everybody, as well as those watching, the use variance claim was come about by the Locust Street project that was oversized, that residents fought to get more realistically sized, which comes with its own loopholes in the agreement and settlement that you all came to. We were in court over a use variance because it was up for discussion because particular council members.
[Jean Nuzzo]: We as in we the people, the residents of Medford asked for that to be done, because there was some discussion about whether use variance was allowed, because there is a conflict that was in the codified document that was on file. That is what occurred. It was brought forward. And that was the initial just you can shake your head no, but
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes, recently that was the ruling. But the reason it went to court is because there was some discussion about it. And an opinion is just that, an opinion.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Could I request a copy of that information to be sent because that is not my recollection and I don't have a date of that occurring. I was following very closely. How would I go about doing?
[Jean Nuzzo]: So I have to go through the law department for you to get that information. It's incorrect, but I'll do it.
[Jean Nuzzo]: 2016 June.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can I speak on any topic?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can I speak on any topic? Yes. Okay. I'd like to speak if I may. My name is Jean. I live at 35 Paris Street. I was watching from home and I came in because you were talking about 40 B developments and the housing production plan. And I wanted to come for you tonight to just put a fine point on a few things that you all were speaking about. The first, that the 40B projects are on hold and causing tax revenue losses is inaccurate. We are in court because there is a disagreement on the calculation for GLAM and whether or not we qualify for safe harbor. And we are in court because currently the Baker administration appointees are declining all safe harbor applications. That's the first point I want to make. The second point I want to make is that the 40 bees that I mentioned in the housing production plan are referenced as being 100% counted as government algorithm affordable. They are not 100% affordable, by no means are not truly affordable by what the majority of Medford residents can afford. the units that are putting there that are affordable will either be 20 or 25%. So please, let's not walk away from today's conversation with the impression that we're declining 40 Bs that are 100% affordable opportunities for the residents of Medford and the greater area that we live in. I just wanna put a fine point on that because there seems to be that people speak about 4DBs with a level of expertise that isn't really present. And it's important that we understand the complexities of 4DB and how they impact development and how they impact potential affordability because this is an extremely nuanced topic. It's a political hot topic and it's a lot of discussion is underway about the right approaches to reach truly affordable solutions that target what the average person can, under a normal salary range, be able to afford to occupy, buy, rent, what have you. So please, I'd just like to make sure that we're not walking away having our residents think that if these 40 Bs are built, they'll be 100% affordable and there'll be housing that everybody can. Thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Sorry, I just have the numbers in case anybody wanted to know. They posted during a meeting. I'm not sure, I don't have it notated in front of me, but I did take a screenshot. It's 114 people that submitted for Jean Barry Elementary School. The next one was 22 submissions for Mystic Elementary, and then they decreased by their significant one.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, most of you people know me.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Had a business here in town for over 28 years, Lister Insurance on Central Avenue. I've been very involved in the community for a number of years. I was a Little League, I'm sorry, a T-ball coach for the South Medford T-ball League, and the team actually won. twice. I was also a soccer mom. I also was secretary of the board of directors of Temple Shalom. I was vice president of the Salem Street Business Association, worked closely with Tom Convery. I also became president of the Salem Street Business Association for three years until we decided to break apart and merge with the Chamber of Commerce. I've done a lot of social work for the community, participated in DARE events. Also, personally, I know.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I have a big voice, I'm sorry.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Okay, so the point I'm trying to get at is, done a lot for this community. My son went to the Columbus School. I loved this community. My heart hurts. It's torn apart. I have been ridiculed. I went to the police, support the police rally. I was called a Nazi. This Jewish woman was called a Nazi. And I was blamed for bringing Method Youth there.
[Jean Nuzzo]: appreciate me I thought the topic was public, but it's okay so upset about besides a number of things is that I feel the school committee is ramming their agenda down our throat. I really feel that the school children This is a farce, as John said, this whole rigmarole. And what's being left out is the most important thing of this community, our children. Our children are being pushed aside while we decide upon the name of a school. Please don't insult our intelligence. And we don't want to hear anything we say. It's like we get poo-poo. This is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm tired of the agenda that's being taught, which is Marxist and communist. And I said it. And I'm just tired of the attitude the school committee's got to go, because they don't benefit us. We the people are the people of this city. Not them. They don't rule us. They're supposed to do our bidding. Right now, they're not doing our bidding. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: My name's Jean Nuzzo. I live at 35 Parris Street. I'm a proud lifelong Redford resident, a first generation Italian American. My dad came to this country with lint in his pocket and a recipe for rock soup. And he and my mom carved out a wonderful life for our family. And I'm grateful for that. I'm also Native American. You might not know that about me. So that is my background that I approached this issue with. I'm really saddened by what is going on in our city. and specifically with this issue, because although it may have begun as a political issue, we did have a moment when the committee was pulled together and brought together under their committee of the whole in their school committee meeting, where they could have risen above the politics of it and used it as an opportunity to join our community together, to look for opportunities to help the community learn about people like June Barry Sullivan. who I knew not very much about because I didn't have the privilege of attending any of her classes. And many of the other 18 plus people that were put forth as potential nominees for the position or the honor of having the building named. We could have had a situation where that committee crafted a schedule by which they could have provided us information about the candidates for naming. additional information about the 18 people who were selected. We could have had a lovely event and a lovely time period where we discussed it as a community. We voted on it, and we found a way to celebrate when we renamed the building. But we didn't do that. It remained political, and it remained political because a handful of people are using their political will, regardless of what they're being told by their constituents. And while I agree through the chair with Councilor Knight, that we have grave concerns about our budget, the essence of what makes our government, our government is that it is by, of, and for the people. Not five people on street, not seven people on city council, not one person in the mayor's office, but every last one of us. And unless and until we can find a way to come together to the middle and talk about what is best, what is right, what is fair, what is just, what is equitable, and what is equity in an honest and sincere way. Through empathy and compassion and trying to understand one another, we are never, never going to move past where we are. I'm going to be where I've always been, in the middle, trying to be the person that sees it from both sides. I would hope that you all do that. And I would hope that, although you may not be able to do something about it from behind this rail. you will talk to your fellow members of our municipality and have some conversations with them about a way to move forward in a manner that helps us to heal, because we still can do that. There is nothing about the date that was selected, other than the school committee decided that's when it needs to be. There is no reason why as a community, we cannot decide to pump the brakes on this and really find a mechanism to move forward where we rise up above it and use it as an opportunity to come together. Because what I can tell you about Italian-Americans growing up in Italian-American homes is that we would never want to do something that hurts another person. We would never want to step on another's right because we, in the past, have been considered non-white and treated badly. It's not the first time people have called Italian-Americans crooks and criminals, and it won't be the last time unless we all rise up together and demand better of this community. I thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes, hello, how are you? My name's Nicole DeMonica.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes, it's Nicole DeMonica and it's 51 Burnside Street. And again, I'm a lifelong resident. I've been in Medford my whole entire life. I worked in the medical field in Medford for the last 20 years and I played sports. My children is in Medford. Everything is about me. It's been about Medford forever. First of all, I want to say is we do appreciate all what you have been doing and we know that it's not your job and this might be frustrating to you. So I do want to say that we really do appreciate your help in this. The reason why we did have to come to you is because we are hurt and we don't know what else to do and we're just coming to you because we want your help. You know, so much has happened over the last year and so much stuff has been disheartening that we're at the point where now it's causing such a roughness and people are being talked about, councilmen are being talked about, you know, people, deceased people are being talked about. that have done nothing but good to the community. It's just gone too far. But I do want to let you know that we really do appreciate your help and we know that it's not your job. What I do want to also point out is what Adam said, is that you said that the process of name change is happening and that the city, you basically have to let the city council do their job. I mean, the school committee do their job. And I understand that, you know, as much as I didn't agree with the name change and, you know, I don't want it. I agreed, I said, okay, it's happening, we're gonna do it. So I even, you know, signed up to be on the committee. I didn't get chosen. Other people got chosen, you know, that lived there for about a year. And that was fine. So we went on and people have voted, you know, multiple people have voted. It's not just the Italian community either. Self-Method is Multiple different nationalities. It's just it's italian community, but that doesn't mean just italian people live there So when you sit when people are now saying after you know, people have put the time in they voted now Even though we didn't want the name change. We said, okay, we're going with the process. We're letting the student council Do their job. I mean the school committee do their job, right? We're doing it. Like you said Now we all did that and now we're being called cheaters and we're being talked about the deceased and council members are being talked about as well. I mean, where do you what do you want us to do now? We've basically done everything that we can. I mean, look at Jean Barry, 114 to like two. I mean, I mean, why are we even still talking about this? It goes back to even the petition that we had signed up. You know, there was like over 1300 people that didn't want the name change. And then we had about 300 people that were okay for the name change and they weren't even from. So right there that was just one part. Okay, the name changed more than method residents didn't want it now this gene Barry 114 to like 4 and 20 and now we're being called cheaters and and scammers. I mean This is where we're asking you because now we've done our job. We follow the steps We've done what we need to do, but now they're still Basically trying to hurt us and now talking about our community. I come from my parents. I'm the first generation here I lost my parents when I was a child So when you have people now talking about the Italian community the way they are and It is, it is hurtful. So I just want to know what can you do to help us? Can you do anything? That's all.
[Jean Nuzzo]: said a lot about you a lot.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Was it someone as a member of the committee, and this the member of this committee, I'm not going to say the name. But this is a two people that Their husband in white they shouldn't have been on the committee in the first place. This is someone that's very biased and very one-sided and very Vocal very verbally vocal saying people have abuse problems have alcohol problems have addiction problems You know italians are racist and everything. This person has been very very vocal and very vulgar And he's the one machine They're now on this advisory board. So Adam, there's someone like me, you know me. I've been Methodist, please support Method, everything. I didn't get chosen. There's other people in Method that's been living there for a whole life. But then we have someone like this that's been chosen and his wife has been chosen just like other people. And now they're talking about us.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Great, that's what i'm asking. That's what I want to know. How can you what we don't know this we're not educated on this information But what can we do about it? Because this are there policies in there? I mean, uh, is this something that can happen? Because I think if any one of you sitting on that podium right now, no matter what you what politics you are What would you like whatever if you read what's been written? If you did not if you thought that this was normal and this is okay Then I don't know what to say about you, you know, because this this is not normal. I think anybody who reads it will know it's not right So I won't this what can we do? Can't that this committee obviously is not built trustworthy the people on it. It's very biased The way it was just pick was very biased. I mean, it's not it's the committee should be Torn down and start all over because it's not It's look what they're saying now now they're saying that we're stuffing you everyone here talks about jean barry I I didn't go to I didn't have jean barry, but I know jean barry, you know, and I know that she's a good student I know all that she's done done for this to the kid the community her per family has had to sit here and basically Been told that she's a racist and she basically saying that she hits black children Like, who says something like that about someone who's deceased that's done so much for the community? Like, that's just horrible. Don't you think so?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yeah, I know.
[Jean Nuzzo]: No problem.
[Jean Nuzzo]: No problem.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Okay, Betsy Rooster, Roth Street, Medford Mass.
[Jean Nuzzo]: This community used to be filled with love. It just seems that in the past 18 months that we have been divided. Comments have been made. Our wishes, our desires for this community have been set aside. All I've heard tonight is we can't do anything. We can't do anything. That's wrong. We can do plenty. Our numbers are great. We're a strong, loving community. We love Medford. We don't wanna see it be, and I won't name any communities that are falling apart. We don't wanna fall apart. We wanna come together. What it feels like with the school committee is that they are dividing us and they're losing their focus. Spending all this time on a school name change when our kids couldn't go back to school, and I forget who mentioned about pandering for go to stop and shop one week when the kids aren't even in school they want money for hand sanitizer the next week it's for something else. I mean, What is going on? The kids aren't even in school and they want hand sanitizer for the school. It's ridiculous. I mean, we're not idiots. We love this community. We want to know that the leaders that we chose care as much about this community as we do. I want to hear more. We can do something. We can get together. We can parlay. We can talk. We can share our ideas and share our love and not this division. That's all I have to say. Thank you. And hatred.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Do you want to finish in a minute?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Lynn Frieda, Stearns Ave, South Medford. I'll be quick. I have many things to say about the changes that this parking committee has put forward, but I understand it's been put on hold for a committee of the whole. With that being said, I have two questions. One, will the public be able to speak at the committee of the whole?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Okay. And two, who has the body say to change the rules of the parking parking commission. And that is
[Jean Nuzzo]: Okay. Okay. That's all. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: That's okay. That's okay.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can you hear me now? Yes, Jean. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate the time. A few thoughts. First, I wanna just recall for the school committee that in June of 2020, we had an initial response of 180 names. I think you have those on file. I have the receipt of email that you do. So those names still connect with those 600. I'd like to say that I think that it's important that folks consider that affect an impact of a change. Yes, we voted to do it, but we aren't really doing very good change management here. This is really being shoved through. It is painful on both sides of the situation, both for people of color who have been impacted and for the Italian American community. And it does a disservice when people dismiss either side's positions, thoughts, and feelings. And I find that really troubling. And I think that's what folks are saying when they're saying it's too fast, we need to slow down and we need to talk about it. You know, it goes beyond this being an election cycle. People will remember, people are going to be impacted and simply changing the name isn't going to make it go away. Change is a process. Historically, we haven't done a good job of it here in Medford, regardless of what the topic is. And this smacks of being another situation where things are just being pushed through for expediency because that's what a handful of people want. Really, I think you need to be careful about how a committee is selected. And I think we need to be careful about how people are treated overall. After all, the whole point of the argument of the name change is because this individual allegedly has treated people- And you have 15 seconds, 15 seconds. And so I wanna just implore people to consider not only their own perspective, but others as well, and let's try to move forward in a way that's positive to folks. But I really think we do have more important things to be dealing with at the moment in the middle of a pandemic. Thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hello, how are you? Thank you for letting me speak. I just wanted to ask one thing, and this is the major thing that is going around Medford. Does anyone care about the division that this is causing Medford right now? That's what I really want you council members to actually think about is what this is doing to Medford. This isn't just actually a Medford thing. This goes way above Medford. This is now a state thing where other people are speaking about this. Have you thought about that at all?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Okay. So I'm not, none of you really know me, but I come from, I'm an Italian American. My parents and my great grandparents are all, you know, I'm the first to come over here. And the thing that Columbus is so important to us, it's not the person, as David said, it's what it is to Italian Americans. South Medford is a very Italian-American community, just like a lot of Medford. You are basically taking that away and stomping on all our traditions, everything that we care about. A lot of people that are against this, as you say, they're not really from Medford. They might now live in Medford, but they don't know the culture. No one on the committee is actually Italian-American. So you don't know how we actually feel about this. I have a son. He's in the second grade. He came home to me, he doesn't know anything. And he said that Italians are bad. And I said, what are you talking about? Columbus is bad. He's a bad person. Nobody, you don't know what you're talking about. So this is my, my nine year old child is coming home saying this. And he said that someone told him this in recess. So you have to think about not only what you're doing to the Italian community, but what you're doing to our children. Nicole, you have 15 seconds. So that's what I just want you to think about is that what this means to time community and what we feel about is not about the person. I don't think Columbus is bad, but it's about what the meeting is, why Columbus was even brought up as David has discussed. It has nothing to do about him. It's made you Nicole. Okay. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can you hear me now? Yes. Great, thank you. I'll be brief. So I think these conversations and the things that people are talking about illustrate very well what I alluded to earlier, and the fact that the change management process is not a process that needs to be jammed through for expediency. for political optics in an election year. And I think that's why looking at these conversations, that's why this needs to be a more longer term conversation, right? I think people are still overlooking that for a lot of Italian Americans, it's not about Columbus and what he did in his life. It is about what he became to Italian Americans who used that opportunity under Harris to lift themselves up and stop being lynched and beaten and prosecuted. Although I will say as someone of Italian descent, Italians are still treated badly in certain circles and people still lock down on them. And there is stereotypical issues that occur specifically in Hollywood and the way Italians are projected and portrayed on television. So this idea that Italian Americans don't suffer anything isn't true. but it's not in the same regard as what's going on in other areas of our culture right now. And so there's a great opportunity here as we move forward to create healing, but that's done over time. It's not done by a three week effort to put together a random committee and decide on a name out of people submit. It's more than that. And I agree with the previous speaker, but there are many Italian icons that could be selected instead. But again, that's something that Italian Americans should be picking. We shouldn't be told again, like we were told originally. And you have 15 seconds. So again, I would urge you with someone who is a certified project management, change management consultant, and have been doing this type of work for 25 years, that it needs to be measured or it's going to create a deeper rift. It won't be something that will be forgotten. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hello? Yes. Hello, I'm sorry if I have an echo. So I just want to touch base with what the council member just said about everyone was informed. You keep on saying that everyone was informed, but that you know that is not true. Just like Brianna just said, you had two days to make this a point to change this. The community was not involved, and you all know that. So to say that they were is just an insult to us. As for Paul, the way he acts and just his smirking on here is a complete insult. Everyone knows what Paul said. If you go on my private, my page, you'll see a video. Point of privilege, member Van der Kloot.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes. I won't say that. It's already out there. Everyone knows. I just don't think it's fair for someone to say, well, I want to select X, Y, Z, when they already put out what they want. And what they want is very biased. So I'm not unsure why these people are even allowed to have a say in anything. And Brianna, I know you know this is not right. I mean, just looking at his smirk is an insult to you, nevermind all of us. That's all I want to say it's already out there, and this has not been brought up I have people who have been coming to me saying like oh my god I didn't even know that this is happening. It's not now until us the community has brought this forward to the rest of the community that this is going on and now people are outrage. I'm supposed to be speaking with the Boston Globe tomorrow about this whole issue. And I said, I'm going to wait till after this is over because I'm so heated about this right now. And I want, I don't want to say something non-biased, but I'm just so saddened by what is happening and why we are still concentrating on this when our kids, we just got literally told that our kids need to be back in school by April 4th. My son is afraid to go to school because he can't wash his hand because there's no paper towels. Nicole, we have 15 seconds. This is the stuff that is important. Right now, I really believe that this should be tabled, if anything. You obviously know I don't think we should change the name at all. But right now, I think this should be tabled. We have too many council members in the mix right here.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Um, Seth.
[Jean Nuzzo]: And I think it's a growing I'd like to echo my fellow residents, Cheryl and William's comments about the exacerbated change in values when developers and flippers take a parcel and take a single or a two-family and make mansions where those were, further eroding our housing affordability within the city. And I want to just point out, when we say investing in a community, it's far more than dollars invested in a community. You can be highly invested in a community and not invest a penny. We have many people who advocate in this city, and they are investing in ways other than knocking down a house and putting up a new one. These developers are not investing in our community. They are investing in their projects, and they are doing it repeatedly. lather, rinse, repeat. Madcalf, Walnut, Thomas, Forest Street, Park Street, Court Street, Washington Street, Pleasant Street, Winthrop Street, Bower Street, South Street, just off the top of my head, the same thing over and over. Buy it for less than 500, sell one part of it for over seven. That does nothing to create housing affordability and everything to make these people a lot of money. And the gigantic holes in our zoning and loopholes in our zoning perpetuate this. I would urge you, urge you to take on your primary responsibility of zoning review and zoning reform that creates purposeful development, that creates the things that are important to our community and does in fact invest in our community. Thank you so much for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi. Thank you. Jean Nuzzo, 35 Paris Street.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Just a few quick thoughts. First of all, you're in a space with 20-foot ceilings. You're distance beyond 10 feet. and a room that typically holds between 200 and 250 people, you're currently at between two and two and a half percent capacity. As for public participation, City Hall is quite large. You could do an inbound pathway and an outbound pathway with some staged areas, six foot distancing dots and monitors in the hallway, and citizens and residents of Medford and speak in front of that chamber. And if you need some help, let me know. I've done a million square feet of this at this point. So again, I applaud you being on site. I recognize that people are concerned about masks, but right now in this moment, you're roughly at 2% occupancy, which is lower than what's required. Thank you for letting me speak. And again, if you need my help, let me know. Thank you very much.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi. Thank you. I apologize for not having video. My signal doesn't do so well with video. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I think there's some confusion on what ADU units are and what they're supposed to do. Accessory dwelling units are historically spaces that are created to allow for additional living, typically of related members. So in other words, an in-law apartment. above a garage for your college student to have a place to be. They're not meant to be rental or condo stock. And that's important because we talk about housing and affordability and affordable housing interchangeably, but it's really not. The supply and demand curve does not inflect in housing because housing isn't a consumable like a widget or a bag of sugar. And we really need to stop conflating housing affordability with affordable housing government quota that is required by 40B for the state of Massachusetts and what housing stock does in the community. So while These AHUs have a place in our community to help maintain places for people to be without being displaced. They will in no way, shape or form do anything to increase affordable housing, quote, units that are required as subsidized housing units are, because they're never built with those subsidy funds because they're usually put into existing structures, whether it be a basement, an attic, a front room, above a garage, you're not building them separate. That's the first point I'd like to make. And then the second point is this is just another layer of death by paper cuts. We are currently seeing an influx of housing that's high value housing when we take a parcel and it's cut and subdivided, and we get two or four luxury units that are high-end units that do nothing to offset and increase our threshold of income so that our affordable housing threshold rises with it, which further puts housing affordability out of reach for many Medford residents because at least 40% of Medford residents do not meet that $75,000 a year threshold that we typically see with affordable housing requirements and in affordable housing lotteries. So therefore, while I think this is a commendable thing to be looking at, I would caution that we need to be very precise about what we're doing and how we're doing it in the language and that we're sticking to accessory dwelling units for the purpose that's intended. Because otherwise what we're doing is we're creating yet another loophole for quote developers and flippers to come in and up zone through this new ordinance that we're looking to create. So I would caution people and I would encourage our population to think about housing affordability slightly separate from affordable housing, which is the government mandated portions. So I thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Can you hear me? Yes. Sure. It's Jean Nuzzo, Parrish Street in Medford. Thank you. I apologize for not having video. As you can see, there's some technical difficulties. So I'm hoping not having video will help. This is my fifth cycle of budget, and I'm very excited to see that there's a lot of interest in it. I just, I'm going to try to adhere to the rabbits rules, and just have a few points to make about coven. meeting logistics, and I hope you'll give me a little bit of latitude. So, I agree that preventing the spread of COVID is crucial in these unprecedented times. However, it was just announced yesterday across the wire that Massachusetts transmission rate is 0.67. This is 0.33 below the 1.0 rate that is considered significant spread of COVID. So what does that tell us? That tells us that we're doing a really good job of social distancing, wearing our masks, and doing the things that we can to prevent spread. We've just entered in Massachusetts into the phase two, two on Monday. And what that means is that we can have an internal occupancy of 50%. In the city of Medford, we have three large scale spaces that are available for these types of meeting. One is the Alden Chambers, which the city council meets in on Tuesday prior to the COVID crisis. One is the Karen Theater at the high school, and one is the Chevalier. At 50% occupancy, I've seen the Alden Chamber full to approximately 200 to 250 people. So at 50% occupancy, we would be able to house roughly 100 people and maintain the social distancing requirements that are required, bless you, for the COVID-19 pandemic. for the COVID guidelines for the state of Massachusetts. Additionally, in conjunction with the double masking and six foot distance, when you can't keep a six foot distance, it's common practice currently in the industry to install additional clear barriers six feet high and approximately four feet wide that further address the distancing requirement. So there are things that are being done in the industry. We've retrofitted hundreds of thousands of square feet of office and lab space to allow for people to be able to work effectively. And I hope that you'll consider these things. I just want to also touch upon two more things with respect to COVID, because I think it's important that we keep hope. The first is just yesterday it was announced that pharmaceutical companies believe that they are closing in on the potential vaccine and a few, who I won't mention here, have said that they even think they might have something by early to mid-fall. And then the second noteworthy item is that ramivudine, which is being tested as an injectable, has done so well that the manufacturing and pharmaceutical company has announced, I believe it was this morning, that they are investigating an inhalation dose, which means that people will be able to dose themselves under doctor's orders as they would a regular prescription like any other inhaler. So these are wonderful things that we can think of the fact that we're at 0.67 percent, people are doing what needs to be done, and there is a way that we can meet together. I think it's important because people process information differently. People are differently abled, and we need to use every mechanism to provide opportunities for people to be able to participate. I know that we did the housing production webinar earlier in the month. We were able to turn on, through Zoom, a real-time closed caption, which some folks that were in attendance found really helpful. Perhaps we could reach out and share that information so that closed caption would become available to folks attending city council meetings. Saying attendance is increased just because of Zoom is really not an apples to apples comparison. It's great that we have more people attending, but if it's different people and we've excluded people who were previously there, we've done a disservice to those folks while providing an additional service to others. And then even beyond that we have people in our community Who are still on the outskirts for whatever reason and not feeling welcomed into the meanings. So I hope that we'll take these opportunities To consider how we can invite all members of our community into these dialogues in person in video and on the phone as well as watching our pegged channel that has been a lifeline for many people for many years and part of their social interactions on a regular basis. So I do hope we leverage these opportunities to make these things available. I would also suggest that it may be worthwhile to investigate having some Zoom have some information on Robert's rules of order to help some of the folks who are beginning to attend city Council meetings. I can remember when I first started to attend Council meetings. It was very daunting. It was a little scary. And it took me some time to get used to it. And even still now, I don't always get it quite right. But perhaps where we've got so much interest, making some of these rules and regulations available to people so that they can understand point of information and privilege and all of those things that are called in meanings will help them to understand that this is really just the protocol and processes that are used to counter means. The last thing I wondered, and you may not have the answer for me, and it may not be within the realm of questioning. I've been thinking about the commentary that folks made earlier about three days out of work. If folks were out of work for three days, they would have lost their job. And that's true for a lot of people, unless you're providing notice. So what I was wondering, I would hate to have an opinion that you guys just randomly decided not to show. I know we do not always agree but I know you always try to do the very best and I hope that question is not out of line.
[Jean Nuzzo]: All right. I just wanted to be sure they weren't no call, no show, because I think that's a narrative that's there. And I don't necessarily think that's fair, because as I said, I don't always agree. But I know that the councillors tend to try to do their very best to represent folks.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yes. Alexi Lane Lowman, one 58 Brown Ave. Um, Roslindale, Massachusetts.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Um, so the question was how much is state funded particularly correct of your program? How much is state funded of housing or of the agency as a whole?
[Jean Nuzzo]: I'm one of our contracts just ended. So I'm trying to do math quickly in the moment. Um, just a ballpark, just a ball.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I would say about half, but it's, it's, I'm sorry to say it this way. It's kind of complicated math because, um, the majority of housing funds come through the department of, um, housing and community development, but they originate as federal funds.
[Jean Nuzzo]: federal funds. Right. It originates as federal funding, but it flows through the state. Um, so if you're asking particularly like similar funding as the CPC funding, um, we've just started, um, two new contracts with the city of Malden that are for this same type of programming. Um, we are seeking this contract right now.
[Jean Nuzzo]: So that, I think that maybe it's a matter of nuance in the conversation. So we're particularly and specifically talking about rental assistance funds. Since we took over for TRICAP, we've been serving Medford residents and providing the same housing counseling package of programming that Tabitha described earlier that involves budgeting, stabilization, case management, access to other services, and really maximizing the benefits that are available to somebody. particularly rental assistance is one of the least funded categories of benefit that folks are really in need of. And so when we're talking about calls for specifically rental assistance, folks who are in need know often Go to ABCD for this service go to housing families for that service. And when there aren't rental funds available, period because it's not within the system. Folks know that they're not available. So if this were to be granted very quickly The word would spread that there are rental assistance funds available I know that with our work in Boston that most of the calls that we get have a need for rental assistance rather whether it's large or small and And so it is a little chicken or the egg, unfortunately, in the conversation right now, but it's not that ABCD and our services are not known to Medford residents. It's that this particular aspect is not known because it hasn't existed before.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Sure. Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street. Definitely, if you've ever spent any time in West Medford on High Street in that area, while there's not a significant high number of bicyclists. There are many, and they travel that road faithfully, and it is a dangerous area for them to be. One of the things that we do in the industry that you may want to consider is a mock-up... The cycling industry? No, in the construction industry.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Although, you know, in my younger days. One of the things we do do is we mock up and we mark out space, especially in these incremental changes. There are organizations like Team Better Block, I think they're called, that will come in and chalk mark the area in advance so that the residents and the community can see what the impact is that you're going to affect. for a change. It's not a lot of money, it's not a lasting change, but it allows people to see that change and then start to provide meaningful feedback because most people cannot look at a drawing and truly conceptualize what the impact of that is. And I think we saw that down in South Medford across from the Tufts Pool, where we invested significant money to make a change to the flow of traffic. And it's been disastrous for the neighborhood because it put all the traffic down the side street. And while the Brooks School has a hawk signal that flashes, the Columbus School does not. and they get a significant amount of traffic and cars flow very fastly there as do the Roberts and the McGlynn so I think holistically we have a problem with people traveling excessively fast through our city and to give attention to one school and not mention all the others is really not equitable. That's my first thought. And I would encourage you to look at that opportunity, to mark up those streets and avoid the consequence that we are seeing over on Tufts. The other point that gives me grave concern is that we are talking about eminent domain taking of private land for public safety and usage for bike paths and sidewalks and safe schools, which are all safe walking to school, which are all important. But at the end of the day, it's an eminent domain taking of public land. And that is a very slippery slope. So I would ask you, today it's this area, three months from now it may be another. Our highest level for public safety is the site formerly known as the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Are you ready to take that by eminent domain? It is a very slippery slope. So what I would urge you to do is look at maybe marking up the space and seeing what the implications are before you open that Pandora's box. And I thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I'm going to give you guys an analogy, and I think this is a great idea, but it's the equivalent of putting a bucket under a flood. When you have a deluge of water, you want to turn off the source or turn down the source to help alleviate what the issue is. We continue to look at, and it's admirable for the short term, but it doesn't resolve the issue for the long term. And what it does is turn our government into a bank. So we're saying to people, if you owe money and you can't pay it, we'll alleviate that debt temporarily by way of deferment and charge you 5% interest or 8% interest. And so now we're a bank as well. If we look at how we are planning our city and assure that we are doing things to increase our commercial tax base, what we are doing is creating new revenues of income stream so that we don't have to continue to increase real estate. And I strongly object to the idea that we should tax land so that it's more valuable, because increasing the value of real estate is everything that is wrong with the housing market and is the core problem of why housing is so unaffordable, because it's become an investment opportunity and ceased to be a place where people live. If you look back in years past, when real estate was divided between commercial, which was investment opportunity, and residential, which was a place where you lived, housing was not inflated the way it is now. So I would caution you that when we talk about these academic things, you should look at how things have come to pass. And inflating the cost of land does nothing to help keep elderly people in their home or marginalized people in their home or allow for opportunities to people to be able to afford a piece of property or an apartment or a condo if they so choose to purchase into that American dream. So with that said, I would You know, laud the fact that we're looking at these things, but we really should be thinking about the source too, and it starts with really good and solid urban planning that takes into consideration those multiple avenues that afford us the opportunity to balance for our residents their real estate tax. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, good evening. Gene Nuzzo, 35 Paris Street. I hope you'll give me a little leeway. I'm just catching up on the happenings and I have some thoughts. And a few of the points that I wanted to make have been brought up in this particular topic, so hopefully you'll give me just a little bit of latitude. I want to talk about leadership, because I think it's crucial in dealing with this issue. And leadership involves establishing a clear vision and sharing that vision with others so they'll follow willingly. It's providing the information, knowledge, and methods to realize the vision, and it's coordinating, balancing, conflicting interests of all the members and stakeholders. A leader steps up in times of crisis and is able to think and act in a creative way during difficult times. And transparency is also crucial in this particular instance. And transparency is a lack of hidden agendas and conditions. It's accompanied by the availability of full information required for collaboration, cooperation, and collective decision making. A minimum degree of disclosure is required when making agreements and dealings and practices for transactions to assure everything is open and available. And they are essential conditions for a free and open exchange for the rules and reasons behind measures to be sure that they're fair, clear, and concise to all participants. And they're not mutually exclusive. And I feel like the events that we have been going through in the city of Medford in these past several days and what I've seen on highlight reels.
[Jean Nuzzo]: But I think it all ties together, right? We've got a lot of people who have high emotions and everybody's cherry picking different positions and items and thoughts. And while I don't have children in the school system, I think that brings a very different perspective to what's going on, and I'm sharing that with you because I think it comes into play, because this is one component, right? I think there's a larger issue at play here, and that is that someone, regardless of who it is, and to Brianna's point, we may never know because the item has been disposed of.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I'm trying.
[Jean Nuzzo]: But his point was that it was found in the school because there was a rental component.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Do you want me to do it at the end, or can I?
[Jean Nuzzo]: So while I recognize the issue, my greatest concern is not in the response and how the decision was made, but that the item was able to be brought into the school. And I think a component of it is the rental. But the fact is that someone, we don't know who, brought that weapon in in the first place. And I think we're doing everything very piecemeal, and this is a small component. So I would just like to point out that it's a protocol review. It's a full-scale protocol review. You know, the reality is that the cities around the United States, not us, have been hyper-focused on this issue. They've developed committees on safety, both for schools and otherwise, to solicit community feedback and ideas to be included in the formation of their plans and crafting of their first response protocols. They work with architects and engineers and owner's reps to review and improve existing designs to harden their building shells. and come up with distractive techniques within the building in the event of a crisis. And they find the funding and they begin the implementation of those plans. We haven't done any of that. We're not even speaking about that. And that is really the crux of the problem. The crux of the matter, from a solution perspective, isn't to cherry pick each and individual piece, but it's to look at it holistically. And not only to deal with it from a logistical perspective, but to provide information to the people who are the most likely target, which is our students and our staff and our schools. We need to provide them with information on how to respond, when to respond, and practice those responses so their muscle memories kick in. And talking about rental and talking about who can use it and talking about storage and all the other pieces are just small pieces to the larger puzzle. The frightening fact is that we're not keeping up with the times. In Medford, we've fallen behind. We've spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on other projects. And we've let this crucial issue fall to the wayside. When you think about the different projects we've spent and monies to expedite some of them, some of the measures that you can do for a single school cost under $400,000. And while that seems like a large amount of money, we spent $500,000 to expedite the Riverside Plaza project. So it's all about looking at the large picture. And that's my point, and that's why I'm here. I just want to say that I believe our focus has been on the wrong place, and we as a community need to be direct. Had even some of our energy and effort been spent on concrete assessments and plans to protect our schools and our public buildings, there would have been a protocol in place. The issue wouldn't have been left to the discretion of the administrative team on staff that week because they would have known what the protocol was and they would have followed it. So absent of that protocol, They made their judgment on what to do. In hindsight, we all believe it was not the right judgment. But I don't think if you reflect as an individual, everybody would say, I absolutely would have called the police. Right? So my final point in closing is that my issue is I believe we have an issue with transparency and approachability. There were people and there are people that are resident stakeholders and subject matter experts who have raised the issue over and over. And they've been disregarded and they've been silenced because some people don't know what they don't know. And the only way you're going to get that information is if you allow people to speak. There's a dedicated focus in this city to urbanize the city of Medford. And we need to, in conjunction with that effort, if it will move forward, do what needs to be done to prepare us for what urbanization means. This event is a wake-up call to our community. This administration in this city needs to become fully transparent and participative immediately, at all levels. It should be clear to everyone at this moment, in this time, that in a disaster situation, we would and will be lacking in the essentials we need. Unless this administration's approach to planning and implementation is overhauled immediately, I urge you to become familiar with the steps and frameworks other cities and communities are taking to investigate these, not just a single, but an overarching. We need to focus on this crucial item swiftly, but with decisive, methodical, measured approach. Change is difficult. Planning is tedious, but we as a community can rise to the challenge, if not for our children, then for who? Please look at this as a holistic issue and not just cherry pick. I urge you to do that as a planner. I urge you to look at the issue in its entirety, if for no one else, for our kids, because they really need to be.
[Jean Nuzzo]: So I would just ask, I don't know if there's a motion that you can make to begin that process more quickly. I know a security RFP will take time and security will only look at one component. If I would make you any recommendation, it would be that you need someone to kind of be the point of the spear on this, because there will be, if you look at other communities, a security component is only one side. You've got the building structure, you've got the building technologies, you've got the manpower, transparency and position, landscaping, architecture, it's a very complex issue. Thank you, I appreciate your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Paris Street, Medford. I just want to take a moment to reiterate and suggest, if we're going to step outside the bounds of standard procedure and expend money, it's more crucial, in my opinion, I would put forth, to look forward towards solutions to keep the issue from happening again than to spend that money to look back and try to figure out what happened. That would be my suggestion as a resident, as a taxpayer, as a concerned citizen. It happened. We don't know that we'll ever definitively know, but we do know we're not secure and we're not safe. And that money would be better spent figuring out how to make our children and our staff in the school safe. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I understand, but it sounds like that's gonna happen. Again, that's it. And it sounds like it was done outside the purview of.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Of a procurement process.
[Jean Nuzzo]: It was on the news, they were talking about it.
[Jean Nuzzo]: don't you approve the school, don't you approve their budget? Oh, so once a year.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you for letting me speak. Name and address for the record, please. Jean Neuzil, 35 Parris Street. So while I think solar is a wonderful thing and renewable energy is great, I take exception with having an argument that we're going to save $455,000 by spending $600,000. I take umbrage with that.
[Jean Nuzzo]: 600 thousand dollars outweighed by whom they get the tax benefits the city couldn't so we're contracting through them and
[Jean Nuzzo]: And how do we arrive at $455,000? Is that because of the energy that we're not going to have to buy?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Right. So we're saying we're going to save $11,000 a month.
[Jean Nuzzo]: For the first year. Because instead of spending how much per kilowatt hour? 15 cents. We're going to spend 9.8. 9.8. The solar company is buying on our behalf and we're contracting them. They will offset the $600,000 by the tax credit. So it's zero out of pocket for us. Correct. Exactly. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Neuzil, 35 Parr Street. Sorry, I just want to take a moment. I can remember being a young girl, and John and Dick, when we were working on one of the shows for the Mystic Players, brought us young folks in there, and it was nothing like what it is now. It was loaded with mold and dust and debris. Nothing worked right. Rat droppings everywhere, and they stood us in the middle of the stage. and they told us their vision. And I just think that where they've brought it, I think they should be acknowledged for that. And I hope and trust that they will pick the right representative to really bring breath back into this theater because it really is a gem for the industry. So, just wanted to let people know that my observations way back then and how far it's come.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Kingston, 16 Chestnut Street, Winchester, Mass.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I'm sorry, another busy night for me.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Yuzo, 35 Parris Street. I have to say, when the night first began, that I was skeptical and thought that this was a really bad idea. I did. Simply because it abuts a property that's a residential property, and I think that, as others have said, it is important that you have quiet enjoyment of your premises. But then I watched the presentation, and the details of construction. The fact that they're going to have double walls of fencing that have insulation between them to help buffer the sound of the dogs. The fact that they're going to have the largest trees they possibly can install in the back to create a barrier that separates that residential unit from the new property that they're looking to put. And the fact that they're going to also do insulation internally and do some traffic control with the animals. And to me, it seems that of all of the different presentations I've seen over the past few years, for businesses and residents and various developments, that aside from one other that I can think of, this one has been very thoughtfully put together. And so, I would say at this juncture, I'm leaning more towards looking at the fact that it's an industrial place They're looking to use it in an industrial or commercial use, which is what it's intended for, and we can look to find a way to work with them together as a business that isn't a negative or net negative solution as residential units tend to be because it costs more to educate. children in those apartments than it does for a commercial property to run. We need a delicate balance between. And this group of individuals are coming to the city of Medford because they see that as an opportunity. And we have other things that are looking to go on Locust Street that we say shouldn't be there because Locust Street is industrial. We've got a bit of a mixed message going on here. I would think that, you know, if it's the overnight issue that's truly the issue, it's a nominal amount of the business for this group of people, perhaps they would be willing to rethink that. And although it's a million dollar investment, I'm sure that a gradual increase, not 100 dogs, not 50 right away, but maybe you look at 25 or 30, and you revisit it in three or six months for that additional 25 or 30. It's a give and take. There has to be a compromise. And I feel like there could be a compromise to be reached here. And I hope that you guys consider that. And with that said, if we can find a middle ground, I would think that it would be a great thing for the city of Medford.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I only have one last thought to add. We can either talk tonight about some type of special variance for dogs, or we'll be at the ZBA in a couple of months talking about another 10 story building.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street. I think on the face, when you look at these properties that are distressed, they're a symptom to a larger issue. And although I appreciate with a clean it or lean it approach. It's not just residents that we have a problem with. It's also businesses. So my position is a lot of these instances, when you delve a little deeper, you're dealing with people who are barely hanging on. They're the folks working two jobs who don't have time to mow the lawn. They're being deaf by paper cuts in fees and expenses from the city. I really think it's a very slippery slope. And if we're going to start to really look at enforcing a clean it or lean it, then it should also be applied, perhaps more heavy-handedly, to the property owners who allow their commercial properties to remain empty and an eyesore on the city for a tax write-off in their real estate portfolio. Certainly, those people can afford it far more than some individual who may be as having trouble keeping their property. So I would urge you, as you start to look at this ordinance and delve into it deeper, to consider that some of these folks, it's an issue of finance and time. And this is another one of those methods and approaches that can often lead to gentrification. And I think it's no secret how I feel about balancing our development in our image with not gentrifying our residents out. So I would just ask you to consider those things as you look at it. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street, Medford. I've inquired a few times in a few different places. So you can't hear me. Thank you. So I've inquired in a few different places, and I've looked online. And it is perplexing to me that any other business has to comply with our zoning ordinance for noise. 11 o'clock to 7 o'clock, you can't make a peep. I can't run a construction site before 7 AM. I can't do anything. I can't even play my radio outside after 11 without being visited if a neighbor decides that that's not acceptable. So why then are we being exposed to this type of noise overnight? It's really detrimental to our health. And I wonder if perhaps you could bring to bear your resources to investigate if perhaps we can do something to curtail the noise because It really is the worst at night when people are trying to sleep, especially that Cafe 331 that comes over at 2.30 in the morning. It's an Airbus 380. It's the largest plane there is, and it's coming over in the dead of the night on a regular basis. It's terrible. So maybe you can investigate. noise ordinance, and if there's some way it can protect us in some manner. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: G News 035 Paris Street. I attended this meeting. It was my recollection that it was $12,000 for the posting of agendas and minutes, 8,000 additional dollars for a total of 20 to engage the streaming module. And then it was room by room between eight and $12,000 for the cameras and equipment to be outfitted. There was a separate key to outfit. That's what my notes had said from that night.
[Jean Nuzzo]: For the transmitter, for the transmitter, but the additional cameras and everything, I thought they said to outfit a room was going to be 12 grand. So you may just want to, I know you have questions going to them. You may just want to clarify that because I recall differently.
[Jean Nuzzo]: G. Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street. So having listened tonight, I was unable to attend the last meeting where this topic was discussed, so I'm happy to hear it again and become more familiar with it. As I sit here and I ponder this, I think about the fact that there are many people who live in the city of Medford that work two jobs to be able to afford the homes they have, and they're strapped, and things are tight for them. And I think of our elderly community, which is a high number of people in the city of Medford more than some other cities, and how they might be on fixed incomes, and others who maybe use water less as a method to help save money. And it's decisions like these, $60 for water connectivity, $100 some odd for CPA, It's really death by paper cut for these people. It's incremental and repetitive, and it cuts deeply over time. And it's decisions and choices like this that create a tipping point that force these people out of our city and make them move someplace else, a city that has historically been made up of people who are hardworking individuals. And it troubles me greatly that I continue to see this gentrification going on. And I really would urge you to consider Um, maybe some type of tiered approach, especially for those folks who maybe are just making ends meet. Um, because some of us can handle it, but there are others in, in our community that cannot. Um, so I just would like to raise that point because it makes them vulnerable. It makes them vulnerable to the loss of their property and it makes them vulnerable to opportunistic developers. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, G News 035 Parris Street. If I may, through the chair, just a question on clarification. When Alicia was going over the details of the borings that were going to happen, I believe she indicated there were four that were going to go down to groundwater level. And I'm just curious if we're testing that groundwater at the same time. And if so, what type of additional implications could that open up for that same area? Thanks. Thank you. Are we testing the groundwater? I couldn't hear the end of it.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I feel like every meeting that I attend and I watch, we hear more and more about the onslaught that our residents and small business are facing in this city. And I think it's becoming crucial that we demand that these folks that are working within our city limits reach out and communicate effectively with the people whose lives they're impacting. And in an area like Boston Ave, that isn't necessarily just the Butters or people in the general neighborhood. That's a main area that people traverse through. There should be communications. There should be transparencies for these things. And there should be representation of our residents. We really are, for lack of a better phrase, under attack. Everyone is feeling it across the board. They're feeling it on Boston Ave. They're feeling it up on Winthrop Street by the high school where there's demolition going on up there. Salem Street is getting set to feel its pains with the Break Pro project. I don't know if that statement has come out yet, but we expect that to be happening. And yet, we continue to see the South Street area they're under attack to by their onslaught of development that's happening there. But we continue to see these groups, teams, and individuals come into our city and run roughshod over everybody. And yes, gentrification is underway, but we certainly don't have to sit back and just accept it. And gentrification isn't only going to occur to just our seniors. It's going to occur to our businesses as well. And so we talk about things like how to revitalize Medford Square and bring back small businesses, where you hear about organizations and companies that are suffering because their foot traffic and vehicle traffic is being removed. We look at someone like Carol's, who's been under onslaught now for months upon months with bridge work that's going to extend and extend and extend. And it troubles me greatly because we keep discussing these things, and the situation seemingly is getting worse and worse. We talk about things like development committees made up of residents, and I think we talked about that weeks ago now, haven't heard a word back about it. So, you know, I've said it before, I'll say it again, zoning, development, yes, there are departments that are involved, but the purview of it resides with this And I would urge you, if we don't do something as a group to set limits and insist upon the rules of engagement for these folks, it's going to come to a head somehow. And I just, that in conjunction with the airplanes and everything, it's just, it's crazy right now in the city of Medford. And we look to you guys because we know how Much you all love the city like we do but it's Next week. It's going to be someone else coming up, you know there's always something going on and until unless and until we insist that they have those communication plans and Use the proper methods to communicate them effectively Throughout the city when appropriate. It's just going to continue to go on Thank you
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean, 35 Paris Street. The last time we spoke about potholes, I told you all that. I didn't know the last time Paris Street was paved. Someone reached out and advised me. But the last time Parris Street was paved, they watched it from the window of the Curtis School as Beatlemania hit the United States in 1964. So that's the last time Parris Street was paved. So I'm not surprised to hear that within the next century, we may only see another 50 of Medford's roads attended to. I find it interesting that 30 roads have been done. And through the chair, I'd be curious to know if a single one on the north side of Medford has been done, because I have said repeatedly that our side of the city has really seen no attention whatsoever. Not roads, not sidewalks. But it sounds like maybe that's not a bad thing based upon the committee of the whole meeting tonight that we heard about the poor quality of the hot top and asphalt that is coming out probably for any number of reasons. But 1964 was the last time Parry Street was paved. We have not really had our potholes attended to. So I would love to see some additional funding put towards this. And I don't want to be greedy. I would even be happy with key cut, properly filled potholes, rather than potholes that have some attention given to them as a band-aid for the short term. So I think many people might say, to spread that across a little bit more and have equitable repair of those potholes that are causing the most damage. It does not have to be in one place, certainly. But again, 1964 was the last time our streets saw any attention. Thank you. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: G. Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street. If we're going to list off meetings tomorrow, I'd just like to remind everyone, tomorrow night is the ZBA. 252 Main Street and 49 Pleasant Street, and I think there's one other, but I can't recall, are on the... Thank you. And the Conservation Commission.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Ms. Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I just want to go on the record, too, that Parris Street was also listed as a street that was supposed to be addressed this year. I wouldn't get into a debate about what street is worse. I think on our side of Medford, we have a lot of very what I call depressed streets that haven't really been attended to, the street nor the sidewalks. There's a hole that has been in front of my house for 46 years. We haven't been able to, I mean, it's kind of laughable, but it isn't. It keeps getting larger and larger and larger. Our elderly community on our street won't walk, cannot walk down the sidewalks. It's abhorrent. And often when we attend these dialogues and discussions about development, we hear these developers tell us that our neighborhoods are depressed and blighted. It really boils down to our streets not being able to be taken care of. So I know we've got a committee of the whole meeting. I'd ask that you consider Parris Street and maybe a few more of those surrounding streets in our neighborhood. It's been quite a while since they've been attended to. And I think it would go a long way for a number of elderly people we have, as well as mobily challenged folks in our neighborhood. You know, our area of Medford, I think the last time I checked, we have like 45% of the people who live in North and East Medford that are senior and disabled and lower income. So it's harder for them to get around because not all of them do have cars and they like to walk. So again, I know you've got a meeting coming up Tuesday. I'd like to attend as well. And I'm looking forward to that dialogue. But if you could consider our area as well, that would be great.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Sorry. Still, Gene. I'm news at 35 Harris Street. I just wanted to add one thought after hearing the gentleman before me speak so eloquently about planning. I think, still can't hear me. All right. I'll try to talk up. Is this better? Recognizing that budget is always a concern in this day and age, and recognizing that some streets need to be put off. If we could even be successful in our pothole repair, so currently what they'll do if you're fortunate enough to have a pothole filled, they'll do that. They'll fill it, and they'll tamp it down. But that's not actually the right way to repair a pothole. You're supposed to actually cut so many inches, a surgeon would call it the clear margin, Cut so many inches and then you re-tamp and you fill with a square. If we made those types of repairs, the roads would look less like patchwork. and you'd feel potholes less, because when they're patched, they'd be patched more appropriately. And then the secondary, and possibly more important thing we could do, and occasionally I hear it, when different developers step before you, when they fall under your purview, but what we should do overall, is we should never let anybody who's opening our street open up a one-foot trench. They need to open up a minimum width for a minimum duration so that they have the appropriate space to reset and tamp down, put in the subsoil, put in the proper layers of the different products that are required depending upon where they're working at the right grade so that you don't wind up with the puddle and all of that stuff. And I can forward to all of you. Some of you may be aware, but I'm happy to share with you some general links to help you get a little bit more up to speed. But I think regardless of where we go with our repair of streets, we can do no harm, right? So when we open up our streets and we're working in our streets, if we require folks that are doing this work, and they know how to make those repairs because in other cities they wouldn't dare open up the street for a foot and a half for, you know, four or five feet. They'd open it up properly and they'd, you know, reset to existing or better condition the same way. And they also wouldn't use hot top patches on the sidewalk where there's concrete, where we've had some upgrades done. I've noticed that I think it might have been NSTAR that did the gas upgrades. They would cut out the street, the sidewalk, dig that hole out, and they wouldn't properly set the patch and put concrete back in. They'd just tamp in hot top like someone was going to come later. And we've got some of those on Paris Street that go down the street. There's probably 30 or 40 of them at least, maybe even one for every single address where they tie into the different homes. But those few measures don't really reside back with us, our budget, taxpayer money. It resides to the projects that are being done. And as a city, if we require those things, then our streets are going to look better because we're requiring that people working in them maintain and return them to us in a condition that we're not going to have to be doing repair work in two or three years. So I just wanted to raise that. And if anyone's interested, I'm happy to share some of those links. Thanks.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Name and address for the record, please. Jean Neuzil, 35 Parrish Street, Medford. I just am thrilled to hear the phrase tree ordinance. And I've had some conversations both online and sidebar with various people who are concerned both for our public shade trees, but also for some of the old majestic beauties that are being torn out that we'll never see again. So I think this is great. And I love the idea of those fines going to a fund that people can also voluntarily contribute to if it's a topic that's near and dear to their heart. And I just think it's a great thing to be looking at. And I'd like to thank you all for considering it and put my citizenry support behind it.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street. I can only advise you, as I have in the past, having attended these community development meetings and zoning board meetings, when you attend, there's no real effort made to make sure that residents are able to see the documentation, can clearly hear the documentation, presenters are regularly advised, speak to the board, And often, when you're sitting in the audience, you'll have a back. So anyone with experience in transformational change and change management understands that the best way to deal with pushback and resistance is to make sure that expectations are set. And I think this is another example of the right equipment in these rooms and the right opportunities presented to make sure that abutters in neighborhoods get to hear what's happening. Maybe this could have been avoided and people could have been less upset about it. And I think it's also a good case for more transparency in this documentation. Right now, if a resident wanted to know about that project, they would have to go down to the Office of Community Development. They'd have to request to see the documentation. They'd have to be allowed to have that documentation. It would have to be readily available and not under review somewhere. And you would have to do it right there in the space. And for a lot of people, they're not out of work and home before four or five o'clock at night. So it becomes very difficult for us to see this. So I know previously we've had some conversations. I think it was in one of the subcommittee meetings about some software that's available that would make some of these things.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I think this is the product you're talking about.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Yeah, perfect. And so maybe one of the things people might want to ask them is if there's module that would allow for a mechanism for these documents. I know some surrounding cities, even Melrose and Malden, have a good portion of theirs readily available. I don't know if it's through Google Docs or Excel, but I think it would go a long way because most people, if they have the opportunity to see it, their expectations are set. They're not surprised driving home from work, and it keeps from having emotions elevated because they have that information. So I think the software or some Google Docs solution, maybe temporarily, coupled with maybe some technology, simple technology in the room so that people can hear a little better, even if it's a lapel microphone and a speaker, could go pretty far with some of these meetings. But just so you have that information, because I've attended a lot, and I know you guys have other ones you go to, and you don't always get to be at those.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Duzo, 35 Power Street. So I've been following this issue on social media. And I think that what we have here is a systematic issue. And this all stems back, in my opinion, to the fact that these individuals coming into our city to flip properties are not encouraged nor are they required to engage with the neighborhoods that they're working in. Because they know they'll go to our ZBA. They'll get whatever their variances are regardless of what our residents have to say and This is just a complete Lack of respect for the people in the neighborhood, you know working in the industry If you asked anybody who is truly involved in the industry and not someone who's just flipping properties, but large-scale developers commercial high-end residential large-scale residential They wouldn't dream of doing something like this without some type of community meeting to advise people of what's going on. They wouldn't come down these streets without the proper details in place and logistics in place. And I'm not speaking specifically about this developer. I'm speaking in general. If you walk around and you speak with people, this is happening everywhere. Folks are coming in, they're executing their construction projects, and they're not keeping the folks around involved and informed as to what's happening. It doesn't matter if it's a single unit, three units, or 490. When you're building and you're around people, You have a responsibility to advise them. And so I can appreciate that there are time constraints. Perhaps the developer didn't have as much lead time for this delivery. But I feel if we did a better job at making sure that folks coming into our city to build whatever it is, engaged with the people they would be working around and working in their neighborhoods where their homes are, things like this would not be happening and we wouldn't have folks as upset and concerned as they have been. So I would hope that we would look at this as a larger issue. I think it ties to how we engage and how we communicate across the board with all of these various projects. Not this particular neighborhood, not this particular developer, but overall there's really no mechanism that truly reaches everybody and I think that I would Ask you guys as you discuss this further and look into it further that you think about This issue because as I said I think that if we had those vehicles in place and we had those opportunities for some of these community meetings And getting folks engaged in their neighborhoods to talk with these people We we would do better and maybe feel a little bit more comfortable with what's going on. Thanks.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I apologize. I have a bit of a cold. So being an owner's project manager in construction and development, I work in facts. And I have a few facts that I'd like to put before you for consideration as you think about this demo delay and development in the city of Medford. Currently, today, the city of Medford has 13 properties listed for sale. Thirteen, that's it. Of those thirteen, three are in condo complexes that were designed to be condo complexes. Four are two-family or three-family homes that have been condoized, and the remaining eight are listed single or two-family. Of those eight, four are listed with some variation of attention developers and contractors. So that's what's going on in our city. It is being positioned and sold as a place where some person, male or female, with a truck, some tools, and some capital, can come in here, quickly pick up a property, and do whatever they want with it. That's what's happening in the city of Medford. Another pertinent point of information that I think you need to understand and consider is what our price-to-rent ratio is in Medford. Well, what's a price-to-rent ratio? It's where you take the value of a property that's for sale, put it over the rent times 12 months a year. The city of Medford right now sits roughly at 17.4. There are four cities in the state of Massachusetts that are higher than Medford. Beacon Hill, the Back Bay, the South End, and South Boston. Cambridge and Somerville are irrelevant because they have been gentrified. This is a measure of gentrification. What is gentrification? It is that mechanism that pushes the people who live in a city out because they can cease to afford to live here. That mechanism that takes potentially a resident who lives in a historic building and encourages them to sell because of what's happening around them and the recognition that their taxes are going to get to the point where they're not going to be able to afford to live in the city that they have raised a family in and chosen to stay in and potentially to age and place in. So this measurement, the four cities that are above us, I want you to think about. Back Bay, South Boston, Beacon Hill. Those are some pretty significant price point opportunities. And I don't discourage those types of price points. I think in the nature of real estate, they're critical. But we're getting a false inflation. that's happening here because we're losing our two-family and three-family homes, which are a mechanism for young families and individuals to buy a piece of property and be able to afford it because of the rental capacity. What's critical about this is that these two-family and three-family projects that these, quote, developers, or as I call them, flippers, come in, they come in and they buy that property. And because it's less than 10 units, they're not required to put in any affordable housing. So they're making all profit. So there's a misnomer that this development is going to benefit our housing market and drop the value of property so that it's affordable because we're going to increase our stock. It's simply not going to happen by converting two families and three families and parceling off double lots and making exceptions for non-conforming units to put in another two-family or three-family. Because those developers are not going to sell it at an affordable rate. That's not what's happening. That's not what's going to happen. Not unless we make a decision. We as a city voted, tonight you as a committee voted to affirm the appointments of a CPA that is looking as part of their process to preserve both building and green space. And yet, we continue to allow, quote, developers to come in and parcel our large lots and put up these fast, prefabbed, fabricated in a factory somewhere building that is a fraction of what they would pay for stick-built construction. They're not bringing jobs. They're simply lining their pockets. in my opinion and my observation. So I think that there's a message that can be sent here tonight by this committee. And the message is, the line is drawn. We welcome developers, but we welcome developers that come with a purpose. that come with a desire to collaborate and that want to improve the city as well as make a profit. And I think the fastest way to send that message is to say, yes, no more six months. Now it's 12. It's 18. It's 24. It's 12 with two options. whatever, but I would encourage you to do it because tonight is an opportunity to send one of two messages. That we're here and as a city we're going to stand and support our history and the culture that we want to develop as a group or we're going to sit aside and we're going to let people who are here to make a profit take advantage of us. Thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Izzo, 35 Parris Street. I know I've spoken already. I'll be brief. I would just like to raise two points of information. The first is simply by passing this, that doesn't give a designation to every home as a historical property. It just affords the committee the opportunity to review and decide whether a house is of historical significance. The second point I'd like to raise with regard to families who've aged here and have dwindled off to the last survivors or beneficiaries to benefit. Nobody lives in Medford and says, I live on a double lot. Ooh, when I die, my beneficiaries are going to make a lot of money. What's happening here is the developers coming in, seeing the opportunity, they're giving them market value. and they're making the profit all for themselves. So the argument, I'm sorry to say, has some holes in it. The people who are benefiting are not really the people who are selling. It's the developers who are coming in and taking advantage of those properties because they're able to identify them and they understand the non-conforming and variance rules and how to work with the ZBA and what to do with the Office of Community Development. It's not residents that are making that money. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I think it's no secret that I am extremely passionate about both Medford and its development. I am totally heartened to see this come before the council. I think it is one of the most critical responsibilities that the City Council holds. Residents of this city make a social contract when we purchase here that where we purchase will stay similar, not the same, but similar to where we buy. And I think that we are in some ways under attack from developers around us that are starting to come in and cannibalize us. I'm concerned for people who've made the decision to age in place here in Medford. We historically have people come and stay for generations and that is with thought, not by accident. And I feel that if we're not careful, those families are going to be pushed out and Medford will be gentrified just as Somerville has been gentrified and Cambridge before it. I think Medford is in an enviable position. When you look at the surrounding cities, they don't have the green spaces that we have. When you look at their green maps, their teeny dots across the city, little islands, Medford has whole areas where we don't have development. And I think we have an opportunity to be very purposeful about what we do. I always liken Medford to a diamond in the rough, because I do believe that. If you know a jeweler, they won't cleave a diamond until they're sure of what they're doing. And Medford has areas that are ripe for development, but it should be development that we deem necessary. And so I would encourage this council to continue to move forward. And I would put forth for your consideration that we have a great deal of subject matter expertise within our city limits. There are many people who are very passionate about this specific topic and have good visions. I've talked with some of them. I've heard of some of them. And I think that we have committees for Walk Medford, Bike Medford, the arts, but we do not have a citizen representation. for development, which is the critical thing for our city. And I really think that that's one thing that's lacking because a good and meaningful committee or coalition of Medford residents with some subject matter expertise can help you in that, you know, and bring to bear. It's a big undertaking, but I'm glad to see it. And again, I would stress that in my mind and in my opinion, it is one of the most crucial things the crucial contracts that you have between your constituents, that you're going to, you know, look to protect the interest of the Medford residents, recognizing that developers coming in are buying and they're property owners, but they're not the same type of property owners that are going to be here and stay here. They're going to turn the property around and make their profit and usually leave. So, I'm very encouraged to see it. I appreciate the positive thoughts and I hope that we continue in this forward movement.
[Jean Nuzzo]: G. Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street, right around the corner from Salem Street. This is my neighborhood, so I feel doubly strongly about this. Again, as far as I can tell from all of the readings and all of my interactions in various cities that are structured similarly, Zoning starts with the city council. With all respect, I'm disinterested in what the mayor's opinion is. I'm disinterested in what the community development's opinion is. And I'm disinterested at some level of what the ZBA's opinion is. This is the neighborhood that we live in. We are the residents. We are the people who will drive by it. We are the people who will sit in the traffic. We are the people that as these buildings go up will deal with the power outages. We just had one not a week ago on Tuesday that was for hours for some people. It's getting into the shower and not getting proper water supply because we're already getting developed more than we need to be. It's sewer systems. It's backing up the streets. It's the fact that when you drive down the streets in our neighborhood, people are cutting through because they're trying to avoid 93, and with the fast 14, the entire state has learned how to cut through the city of Medford. So I mean, I think that we can't handle the additional volume that we're hearing someone somewhere is envisioning in this neighborhood. I mean, it looks like Beirut. It looks like they test missiles around there. The potholes are so big it'll eat a Subaru. So I get that it's considered somewhat blighted, although I take exception to that term because it's blighted because it hasn't been cared for properly in budgeting, budgetary planning. So I don't think that, you know, having a vision of putting 15, 20 of these down Stalem Street is really going to do anybody any favor. I think we're going to get into a situation where the people who live in the neighborhood, their properties are going to be devalued because they're not going to be these new buildings. We're going to be dwarfed by these big buildings coming down Salem Street, and we're going to be gentrified out. People who have been in those neighborhoods for two and three generations. families that are young and have bought in because they like the neighborhood and they like the small feel of it. So respectfully, I understand that there are different groups that have political, optical interests at play, but when it comes nine o'clock at night, they don't put their head on the pillow, you know, in the various areas of the city. It's just where they live, and I don't see any big circles being drawn around where their houses are. So I would ask that you make this a top priority, because they are lining up. There is a scuttlebutt. We're starting to see some construction happen. We started to see a few people apply. Some, it looks like, are going to get it. Some looks like they may not. I'm not sure what the rhyme or reason will be, but it would be very unfortunate to see an area that has some beautiful buildings. Some of the buildings in our neighborhood are quite lovely. you know, be taken away and have it turn out to look like Main Street in Cambridge. Not that there's anything wrong with Main Street in Cambridge, but that was Cambridge's decision. I don't want it to be a developer's decision. So I know it's a little bit strong, my commentary, but I feel like our neighbourhood is really on the chopping block very quickly. And it will go like dominoes if we don't do something about it. So I would urge you to please consider it. Because for those of us who live there, it's heartbreaking for us to consider that it might not be there anymore. Thanks.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I'm sorry, I had a little trouble hearing. I wondered if I could inquire clarification. I heard that there's a linkage fee, but is there a purpose identified for that fee? Is it going to go into a City Council account where you guys would be responsible to disburse the funds, or is it just general? The speakers went out, so I didn't hear.
[Jean Nuzzo]: So it's just an additional fee? To me, it would seem like it would make more sense if you had the purview there is Use it for like, you know sidewalks or crosswalks or Whatever. All right. Thanks. I just didn't hear.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street, Medford, Mass. I actually have in front of me from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the Office of Administration and Finance for the Division of Capital Asset Management, the Owner's Project Manager Guidelines for Mass General Law, Chapter 149, Section 44A 1⁄2. I'd like to read it, just to be clear. Effective on July 19, 2004, Chapter 193 of the Acts of 2004 inserted a new provision into Mass General Law 14944, which governs public building procurement. The new provision requires public awarding authorities to engage the services of an owner's project manager on all building projects estimated to cost $1.5 million or more. The law requires that the owner's project manager, also known as the OPM, be hired before the project designer, meet required minimal qualification standards, and be selected through a qualifications-based selection process. The OPM acts as the awarding authority's agent and consultant throughout the project from the design through completion and must be completely independent from the designer, general contractor, and any subcontractors involved in the projects at all times. The law provides a listing of the minimally required duties of the OPM as follows. And I'll just read this and then I'll stop. The duties of the owner's project manager shall include, but need not be limited to, providing advice and consultation with respect to design, value engineering, scope of work, cost estimating, general contractor and subcontractor prequalifications pursuant to 44D.5 or 44D.75 where applicable. scheduling, construction, the selection, negotiation with oversight of a designer, and as a control standards for monitoring performance of the building project and assisting in project evaluation, including but not limited to written evaluation of the performance of the design professional. contractors, and subcontractors. And attached to this seven-page document, it outlines what the OPM is required to do by law and what you can ask them to do. According to this law, your OPM should have been hired before you even engaged with the architect. And I can give that to you so you guys can see it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Gene Nuzzo, 35 Parish Street. I have a few points as they pertain to finance. We've talked a lot about Prop 2.5 and tripping Prop 2.5, but no one has mentioned at all the offset of the maintenance of the systems that are in place for the fire department if they wait another five years. I can't imagine that those costs will come down to continue to repair old equipment. So there also has to be an offset value on the operating side of the equation that I don't hear being factored in. I hear, and I'm glad to hear, that discussions are underway about additional maintenance to these facilities. But respectfully, the City of Medford does not do a good job at preventative maintenance anywhere. So our buildings wouldn't be in the conditions that they're in right now for fire and police, the two sides of these facilities. if we had the proper preventative maintenance in place. So instead, we're doing these emergency repairs and these Band-Aid solutions, and they cost significantly more. So I'd be interested in hearing that. Additionally, with respect to finance, we're talking about $18 million with respect to the fire department getting a new facility at some point. I'm hearing five or so years. The escalation right now for construction sits at about 5%, and it's upticking since 2009, 2010. It was in the negatives then. It started to tick back up. And it looks like it's increasing about a percent, a half a percent, depending upon the year. So five today, next year, five and a half to six, et cetera. And that doesn't include if the current administration under If President Trump passes anything to do with infrastructure, you're going to see those costs increase exponentially. So everyone's saying $18 million, but it's significantly more than that. So again, I think there's a lot of complexities, and I respect that there are a lot of underlying issues that need to be addressed. I think that also stresses the need to really look at this overall. The other point I would make with respect to committees and work groups, I think it's pivotal, and I'm glad to hear that the police will have representation among their membership as will fire. However, the mayor stood here last night and said it is potentially her intention to redevelop that property. So there should be some citizen represented on that committee as well, because if that parcel is going to go up for redevelopment, voters and taxpayers should have a say as well. And right now we don't have a good venue to be involved. We have some other committees that do a good job, but we don't have a citizen development committee. So if there are people at the table, there should be some folks that represent the general population to talk about who and how they may redevelop that lot if the fire department moves. And the last point I wanted to make with respect to financing and schedule, in all of these conversations these past few minutes, I've heard repeatedly about the architect. I've heard repeatedly about what construction's gonna be. I'm still not hearing anything about an OPM. And an OPM will be able to help you guys navigate will help to determine some value engineering and we'll put together that schedule you're looking for very quickly. So thank you for your time.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parris Street. I am, as a resident, in support of having someone to review our traffic patterns. I think they're critical, especially considering the level of development that's on the table and what it looks like will be coming our way in the near future with some more large-scale developments that I'm hearing of. The one thing I'd ask you to consider when you ponder how much we have to look at right now, the type of a backlog we have, the prevalency of the areas that need to be reviewed in the city, the depth of expertise you'll need to get through them, and at some level, the benefit of autonomy. I think it may be worthwhile to, in this resolution, include, for the short term, a consultancy because they can provide expertise that an individual person might not be able to do over the long term. as well as several people to get through that first pass more quickly, that could come out of discretionary funding, and then next year you could have an individual takeover and kind of keep the ball rolling. It just seems like a daunting task for one person, and there'll be even more of the apple to bite come next year. So that was just my thought.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for the suspension. We appreciate it. We're here tonight to just reach out and make sure that everyone's aware that on Saturday, December 17th, we have rented the Karen theater at Medford High School to do a winter kind of festival or fair and show the Polar Express for the children of the city and those children in surrounding towns. Anyone's welcome. It's $6 a ticket or 20, did we say 24, per family of four. And we're gonna have Santa and Mrs. Claus and the elves if people wanna do pictures. We will have balloon twisting and face painting. And there'll be a little prize for the children when they leave after they see the movie. And we've got some other sponsors. I don't know if you wanna ask them.
[Jean Nuzzo]: So if anyone's interested in attending, uh, you can get tickets. We posted on, Facebook, if you are on Facebook on some of the different sites, or you can email us through medfordpolar at gmail.com. If you're interested in having a table, email us as well. And if you're interested in volunteering, we would love some volunteer help because we hope it's going to be a big event and people will come to enjoy the show and participate in the crafts and everything that we've got set up outside. Awesome.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Gina Muzo, 35 Parris Street in Medford. Well, I can appreciate that the lights were taken off the roof and put aside at the dumpster. As someone who works in the construction industry, I would say that that was really An unfortunate circumstance. At any point in time, those could have been taken away.
[Jean Nuzzo]: All right. So did those lights get thrown out? Are those not the lights that are displayed?
[Jean Nuzzo]: So right. So the reason that I'm stepping up is that I'd like to raise two points for consideration. The first that I understand that the building is under construction, there's renovations that are going to be underway, and that we've got a solution up that is a reasonable solution with the work that's going on. But I think in the review of the space as the construction continues, there's an opportunity to look at ways to retrofit those existing creations from the Vogue students that have been very emotionally contributed. There's a sentimental value, not for myself. don't have it personally, but I know that a lot of my fellow residents have expressed sentimental attachment to them. And I think that as part of that effort, as we look at making renovations, we should look to see if they can be refit. And then my other suggestion would be if they can't stay on the building or on the grounds, maybe we could do something where different pieces get put in different places. Maybe some could go to the library. Some could go to Hormel. So it encourages people to traverse the city and look at them, rather than go down that freedom way just to Hormel. I think that's a fine solution for this year. But those would be two things that I would hope that folks could consider getting some of it, if not all of it, back. And then, if not, maybe encouraging folks to go out and investigate other things that are in our city by way of these beautiful displays that the students have created over the years. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Gina Muzo, 35 Parish Street, Medford. So, I have a few points that concern me. As this dialogue went back and forth, we'd been talking about soil contamination and a plume in the soil. And just now, offhandedly, someone said, it's our groundwater. This troubles me because if we're going to start injecting chemical into the ground to hopefully treat against these PECs, there's nothing to say that we're going to just disturb them and push them further into the groundwater and further contaminate spaces that may not already have a plume. I feel that what we need to do is an assessment. We need to have a geological assessment. We need to have geoscientists involved, and they need to assess specifically the chemical. They can assess specifically where that plume goes, and they can assess specifically how it enters into the groundwater. At the point where you're not just talking about soil, and you talk about groundwater, the implications of that in that neighborhood, and not only that neighborhood, in abutting areas and under the water table becomes significant. This troubles me greatly. It troubles me greatly because I'm sure they've worked hard, but there's still a lot of unknowns. And to come up and say that the city is prepared to step forward and enter into a contract with the lowest bidder in a project that they're not sure how it's going to work, troubles me significantly as a project planner, as a project manager. It's not the right way to approach it. And as a taxpayer, to spend $900,000 on a project that we're not sure is going to work after already having a sunk cost of $200,000 plus an additional $200,000 surplus, this is a big project to have someone not have a clearer understanding when that clearer understanding can be attained with the proper consultancy services. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. If I may, just through the chair, inquire from our city engineer what organization or consultancy conducted the study, and how would parties of interest get a copy of it for review? Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I just wanted to come up in support of the request. I would say the situation is progressively getting more dire. There have been times in the past few weeks when it has been so loud, so late at night, it's disrupted sleep. It really is terrible. I know that we've always been a city that the planes have flown over. But I can remember when I was much younger, they flew much higher. And it feels like that band that they're traveling is getting tighter and tighter, and we're getting more and more of it. So I would echo the thoughts that if we do not find a way to become more vocal as a city, we're going to get the majority of the traffic. But it definitely is becoming quite difficult to get a good night's sleep in our neighborhood and in our area. Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you. Jean Nuzzo, 35 Parrish Street. Hearing these numbers tonight here in the hall regarding the understaffing of our police force, Troubles me greatly as a longtime resident. I can remember back in the day when we had a good presence and as children, you know, driving around the city on our bikes or whatever, there was always plenty of officers. So this troubles me. What troubles me even more is knowing that we're going to have 800 new units coming online that are already been approved by our zoning board. They're underway at Wellington Circle and Wellington Woods and a few other areas. And to hear of this deficit of manpower, knowing that we're going to have another 800 some odd families coming online soon, I would really urge the council to include in their motion something that stresses the importance of getting some additional bandwidth for these folks. who work really hard to have them up to speed before these folks start arriving to our city. Thank you. Thank you all.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Good evening. My name is Jean M. Nuzzo. I live at 35 Parris Street. I would like to just take a few moments and reiterate a few thoughts that I made with a much smaller audience last week. Just my research, I have some information to reference. So just as a point of information, a lot of what I have to say tonight I've researched, and they're facts. They're not Opinions I'll tell you if I think I'm making an opinion. Sorry, so I've done a lot of research and I have some information to share First let me say that I'm a lifelong Medford resident and I think that that still means something I live in this city because I love it and I'm passionate about Medford and our opportunities to develop the city, and I'm passionate about construction and development. It is the industry that I work in. I do construction planning and tenant improvement development work for several different industries, including biotech, government, academic. So I see what other cities are doing locally and all the way down to Rhode Island. So I am fully in support of responsible development within the city of Medford. I still believe, as I did last week, that there is a subset of Medford officials that feel like Medford is the ugly sister who can't get a date, and so we should just be happy that someone wants to dig in the ground and build something here. reiterate that that is not the case. We sit smack dab in the middle of something that has been dubbed the urban edge or the urban ring. I have documentation from NIOP, which is the building industry standards that they talk about this book. If you're welcome to look at it, I can refer you to it. It is all the projects that are going on in Somerville, Charlestown, Medford, West Cambridge, Watertown, Alston, North Station, and speculated projects around to support the outward migration from the city of Cambridge and Boston proper. Okay. If you want to look at it, I've notated a couple pages of interest, but I think that's available online. If you're interested, I'll let you borrow it or have a copy. I bring this up because in both instances, the developer has said the reason that they need to build 490 units is because there's nothing else they can do with that parcel in an industrial code. that it's zoned for industrial, and because Wegmans is coming across the street, they can't put another retail unit there, and there's nothing else they can do. So if you look at that book, there's at least 150 projects going on, some residential, mostly mixed use, some office, some lab space. I have additional information that talks about what the market will bear, and values for rental, for the city of Medford or Cambridge, the surrounding areas in New England, and what the rents are, and the fact that, as I stated last week, there is now 115,000 square feet of lab space available in Cambridge. So they have a demand for over a million four square feet. They have 114,000. As you look through that book, you'll notice that Watertown, Belmont, the surrounding areas are all doing things to bring business into their cities. Again, I'm not opposed to a residential development. Their position was it has to be residential, and that is my findings and my information that I know of at the moment that's out there. You're welcome to read it. I can refer you to links, whatever you'd like. So again, I'm fully in support of responsible development for the city of Medford. I think we have a great opportunity here. I'm confused as to why this application for variance was considered. As was stated, there are three arguments really don't hold merit. So the arguments that they make about the city needing to give them a variance because the land is brownfield and they can't dig. I mean, World Trade Center 1 that came out of the ground has what they call a bathtub. It's submerged in water. I think there are things that can be done. They don't have to go so high. But again, I think it's just another example of perspective that they bring to the argument. So I think that there are things that can be done. They don't have to build that way, as I mentioned last week. They can do what they call a Texas wrap, which doesn't involve going into the earth at all. And I didn't see anything in the documentation about presumptive load testing to assure that this property can even hold a 75-foot multi-story building on it. It hasn't held that in the past. And in all the documentation that I looked at, I didn't see anything. I may have overlooked it. It may be misplaced and just not in the copies that I was looking at. But I think that's something extremely important to consider for a building that they want to go 75 feet tall. I'm concerned the Butters weren't impacted. I know that in other cities that follow the Massachusetts general law, a Butters and their feedback are prominent. I know of instances in both residential and commercial that when direct to Butters have said no, the matter is closed. It's done. So I feel badly that our abutters haven't had the opportunity and maybe they'd be more interested and open to this building had they had the opportunity to provide feedback. So I think that moving forward with the project this large and not making it clear that this is not something that Medford residents want sets the stage and it sets the precedence that people can come in and develop. And I mentioned last week, and I'll mention again for the benefit of the people who weren't here, that I know that there is a desire or human nature to say, well, that's a little bit further away from me. It might not affect me so much. And that may be true of this 490-unit development. But just off the top of my head, I can think of four parcels, one on Riverside Ave, one on Salem Street, One on High Street and actually a good number on Mystic Ave that a greedy developer or a savvy developer can come in and you will see multiples of this type of building. go up, where they maximize what they're putting, they know the board, they know community development, and I know they work hard, and I believe that they have the best interests of the city at heart. It's a thankless job that they do. I take my hat off. I don't know that I would ever want to do that job, but if it's known that this will be accepted and approved very swiftly in the city of Medford, you will see them come. So I'd ask people to think about that. Is that what your vision is for the city? And if it is, you know, well then certainly stand up and be heard on that position. And if it's not, you know, we need to kind of step forward and make it known that this one we may or may not be able to do something about. It may or may not go our way. But the next one, we're gonna mobilize, we're gonna be ready, we're gonna be united, and we're gonna try to influence and make sure that our voices are heard before that schematic design is completed. I would also urge your consideration, and I don't know how the best way to go about this would be, but I feel like we need some subject matter expertise in Medford on this. There are some savvy developers out there. There are some really good developers out there that would be interested in Medford. And, you know, just by way of accepting this one, I think that we could use a little bit more strength in that expertise.
[Jean Nuzzo]: That's okay. I can finish. As I said, if anyone's interested in the market information, I'm happy to share. I think we need some subject matter experts. And then in closing, I'll leave you with this thought. It may cost us $15,000 to file an appeal. It may cost us $30,000. But how much will it cost the taxpayers for that 490-unit development going in? that we will drive by every day, deal with the traffic, pay for the children that need to go to school, and any other taxing that they put on our infrastructure. So I think in the grand scheme, $15,000, $30,000 is not a lot to invest to at least influence the outcome. Thank you so much.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I was just speaking with someone and they asked me to come up and point out that in all of the development, if we could start to consider a little bit more religiously our seniors and senior development. they seem to be being left out of the discussions. I know that when they met with the council, I'm sorry, the board, there was a question on low income, there was a question on veteran, but we seem to be forgetting about our aging population and they account for, I believe, according to the latest census, roughly 38 to 40%. And then, I don't know if this will be a popular suggestion, but If we could be made aware, if the funds aren't made available, perhaps we could set up a Medford Advocacy GoFundMe page to support the efforts if we had to. I think that that would be a donation well spent. So just something to consider.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Hi, Gina Muzo, 35 Paris Street. Um, I just have one quick comment and then a question. I think I understand what our city solicitor is saying. The example I would give would be if you went to seek counsel for a car accident and it became known in your initial consultation that the lawyer you were seeking counsel from represented that particular client in another accident, they couldn't represent you in your accident because they're already engaged as representation, and so it creates an appearance of a conflict of interest. So I think that probably illustrates what you're trying to say. You're welcome. My question, if you could just provide clarity for me, is it 20 calendar days or 20 business days?
[Jean Nuzzo]: And then the only other thought I had, which I'm not certain is, is there any avenue for us before we go to land court or superior court to appeal the Board of Appeals directly as an internal body, you know, rather than have the family fight in public forum, maybe have that discussion internally? And I don't know the answer to that, but I'd raise that question. In other words, can the city council appeal the Board of Appeals decision, or do they have to go to land court? Is there an appeal process within the Board of Appeals?
[Jean Nuzzo]: Right. So they never appeal directly to the Board of Appeals?
[Jean Nuzzo]: You appeal to court. OK. I just wanted to make sure we couldn't just keep it in the family.
[Jean Nuzzo]: Thank you.
[Jean Nuzzo]: I'm Jean Nuzzo. I live at 35 Paris street. I thank you for your time tonight to hear our concerns about this topic. Um, first I'd like to tell you that I am a lifelong Medford resident by choice. Um, I purposefully made the choice when it came time. I'm sorry. I purposefully, how's that? So I purposefully made the choice to stay in Medford and it is my desire and intent to age here and remain here a lifelong resident. I love this city. I'm passionate about Medford and I am very passionate about construction and development. It is what I do for a living. So to say I'm fully in support of responsible development of the city of Medford would be an understatement. I see our city as beautiful, even in its dusty and dirty state. I love it here. I do, however, believe that there are some people, rather than seeing Medford as a diamond that should be studied before it's cut apart and turned into something as merely the ugly sister who can't get a date so we should accept whatever developer comes in and wants to put a building up. And that is what this feels like to me. I'm confused as to why our Board of Appeals entertained this application for the duration that they did or the amount of time that was given to them the night of the meeting. We were there very late. They had the floor for a majority of the meeting, and when the residents got up to speak, I would say by about 10.30, they kind of cut off folks because it was, in fact, getting late. But I'm confused as to why the application for the variance was considered because the request doesn't meet the requirements of Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 48, Section 10. The three arguments that they made are invalid. Their arguments were that they needed relief because the property was brownfield property, but they purchased it that way. They made the argument that because of the groundwater underneath, they could not put underground parking, so they had to build the structure higher. However, they could do as they're doing on Rivers Edge, the new development by Davis. They're doing what they call a Texas wrap. So they put the parking in the middle and the units around the perimeter so you don't have to go into the ground at all. And then the third position I heard from them was that they could not find a commercial solution for the property. that they had looked but nobody was interested because of the Wegmans building going across the street and because of its location. Although Assembly Row, which has 441 units and 256,000 square feet of retail space is going into its phase two development and will gain another 157,000. putting it just shy of 500,000 square feet of retail space. They, if they could find a way to build more buildings and put more retail, they could lease more space. So I would ask, and I did ask, why then they couldn't find more retail? In addition to that, the city of Cambridge has a deficit of life science property. And there is a outward migration, not only of residents, but of Cambridge businesses in the smaller life science groups that are moving out to Somerville and Belmont and Watertown, which are all further away than Medford. So I would argue that their positions were perhaps not as well thought out of what the marketplace would actually bear. I think there's good opportunity for Medford to avail themselves of this potential type of development. I'd also like to point out for your consideration that although the abutters will be impacted and they were in attendance, those that were there expressed the fact that they were never provided an opportunity to participate in the development or provide feedback on any portion of the design of that unit. The first time they were seeing it was either at the community development meeting or at at the variance application meeting, that hearing that we were in attendance. And I did attend both. I attended the development board meeting. I attended the board of appeals meeting. In both instances, residents expressed the desire to reject this application and that it wasn't good for the city. And in both instances, everybody was looking to come to a compromise, asking them to make it smaller, to design it more to the intent of what Medford architecture looks like. a bit belligerent. They were very sure they were going to get their variance and they didn't really care to listen to what Medford residents had to say. I'd also like to point out that I think true public hearings are critical because although this affects the abutters, it affects the city, not just from a traffic perspective, but if we have this unit come in this large, that doesn't consider a strategic plan for the city of Medford. We are inviting other developers of this type to come in. And we miss the opportunity to work with some of the big developers that I'm feeling certain would be interested that have helped to develop some really landmark properties around the greater Boston area. We should really be looking to benefit from what they're calling the urban edge or the urban ring outward migration. We are centrally located. We, you know, real estate, location, location, location. So we can either just take whatever comes our way, or we can really be mindful. And I'd like you to, if you've seen, I'm hoping you guys have all seen the rendering, it's a very tall building. It's 75 feet or so tall. It's glass, but the perimeter of the building matches the perimeter of the property. There are few trees at the front. but the true courtyard space is reserved specifically for residents. I'd like you to consider developments like that on High Street and Salem Street and Mystic Ave and Riverside Ave. I'd like you to consider that if we let this unit go through, we are sending a signal to this type of developer that they can come in and put those units wherever they see fit. Now certainly, I know that some people don't like station landing. It didn't turn out the way that we were all promised. But where it was located, it was not an eyesore. There was nothing there. So what it was was better than a big barren field. But in these instances, we would be losing real estate opportunities to these huge developments. And I understand the need for housing, but I think that there's a balance that we should look to attain and I urge you all to consider that and I would urge the people, residents sitting behind me in attendance and if there are folks watching at home, I would urge them to think about that and think about if this is their vision for the city of Medford. And if not, I call you to action because now is the time. If we do not step forward and say, not in this way, not without purpose, then these developers will come, and Medford will be another type of city, and it may not be the type of city we want it to be. So I thank you for your time. I'd urge you to put forth a letter requesting the board to withhold a final judgment until the general public truly gets to speak on the matter. Thank you.