Letter to the editor: Trust in Lin Jensen

Trust. It is the word on my mind lately, as we make another trip around the sun together and local elections approach once again.

I am voting for Lin Jensen for planning board because I trust her. I trust her to serve with intelligence, sound judgement, and respectfulness to Lexington’s residents in a way that will shape a town that we can each take pride in. Here’s why: 

In 2023, the planning board proposed Article 34 in response to the state mandated MBTA Communities Act. Many realized the need for more housing supply in our economically prosperous region. Fewer (apparently) read the fine print in the proposal which allowed 13,341 additional housing units as-of-right. Lexington currently has about 12,200 dwellings, total. 

Of course, even with the dimensional standards that came with the Article 34 proposal that allowed five story structures and zero front-yard setbacks, as a general rule not all as-of-right units can be expected to be executed through construction. But let’s consider some numbers (which incidentally, is one of the things Lin does best, thanks to her seasoned professional experience in corporate finance).

Say 30% or 4,002 units get permitted over 10 years. At an average Massachusetts household size of 2.45, that’s a population increase of 9,805: a 28% increase. That’s 12 times the state-wide population increase projected in a high-growth scenario, according to The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. 

I’m a professional architect and planner, and know that while these levels of growth are not impossible, they are typically and more responsibly handled on large blank-slate development sites rather than existing communities where development opportunities are on sites embedded in existing communities. (“Infill”, in planning lingo.)

Either way, this degree of transformation demands extensive and targeted master planning efforts. MBTA zoning overlays are not addressed with any specificity in the 2022 “Lexington Next” Comprehensive Plan. I suspect that this was part of the reason that 92% of Town Meeting members voted last year to scale things down to a more manageable magnitude with Article 2. But I think Lin had the right idea from the beginning, when she voted No on Article 34 in the first place citing a rushed process, lack of feedback, and need to understand development complexity beyond numbers and density. 

I am reminded of a recent presentation published by the American Planning Association, where the Senior Director of Communities by Design posited that the bigger the planning initiative, the bigger the public outreach and engagement process should be. Otherwise, community mistrust snowballs. 

Town growth, public participation, outreach, and trust. When Town leadership is successful, the four scale up together. And in light of the Planning Board’s leadership role on these matters, I’m endorsing the person who analyzes the fine print, understands the long-term implications of zoning changes, advocates for transparency and public engagement, and whose long stated values and public positions are straightforward, responsible, and in line with her voting record.