Thank You
Dear Editor,
I’m writing to personally express my gratitude and recognition for Town Council President Letterie, Councilors Swope, DeMarco, and Costigan for your vote of “NO” on the Planning Board’s 3A recommendation. Your decision reflects true leadership and courage, as you stood firm against the state’s pressure.
Unlike others who have wavered, you four have demonstrated integrity. You listened to the concerns of our residents, thoroughly examined the law, understood the broader implications, and did not succumb to the influence of lobbyist groups like the MAPC or Winthrop Working Together. Your commitment to doing what’s right is commendable.
Please continue to stand strong. Over 25 other communities have also said “NO” or postponed their votes until after the December 31 deadline. We can only hope that Senator Edwards will now support the people of Winthrop and introduce legislation to repeal this law, which was initially championed by former Senator Boncore.
To date the following communities have rejected 3A proposals:
Dracut
Duxbury
East Bridgewater
Freetown
Hanson
Marblehead
Marshfield
Middleborough
Middleton
Millbury
Milton
North Reading
Norwell
Rowley
Seekonk
Tewksbury
Weston
Wilmington
Winthrop
The following communities have postponed until after the December 31st deadline:
Ashland
Billerica
Georgetown
Hamilton
Hanover
Holden
Ipswich
Norton
Wenham
Thank you all for your dedication and service to our community!
Vasili Mallios
Precinct 1
#WinthropsaidNOto3A
Dissapointed in Councilors
Dear Editor,
I was present at the Winthrop Town Council meeting on December 3, 2024. Vice President Belcher made a motion to discuss Fire Station, next steps. This was on the agenda under Old Business. Not one of the other 6 councilors present seconded that motion. The motion was only for next steps, not site or cost.
The shock and disappointment at this non vote of the council is appalling. When you need the WFD they come to you, but when WFD needed you to at least open a discussion on next steps/Fire station, you chose to ignore the request.
As for needing more financial information, the architect hired by the town, Kaestle Boos, have provided the most updated numbers. They are the professionals and only deal with designing Fire and Police Stations. These numbers are real, not just guessed at. The council will make the final decision on what the Debt Exclusion will be. This will be done with the assist of the professionals.
I will not repeat what has been said about the conditions that exist in both stations. Our firefighters need and more than deserve better working and living conditions. I have challenged the members of the Winthrop Town Council to look at each and every Firefighter and tell them why not one would second that motion.
I hope the citizens of Winthrop will contact their respective Councilor and ask them why this project has once more been put on hold.
Karin Chavis
Town Council’s No Vote on Proposed 3a Zoning Plans Is a Win for Winthrop
Dear Editor,
We applaud President Letterie and Members: Swope, Costigan, and DeMarco who voted not to accept the Planning Board’s recommended plan for 3A zoning compliance in Winthrop. These Councilors demonstrated the responsible leadership expected from a representative form of government — protecting the integrity of our community and the rights of its citizens. The future of Winthrop, its quality of life and self-determination over zoning and development, has been affirmed by the Council’s “No” vote. These councilors did not succumb to the intimidation, fearmongering, and falsehoods promulgated by the Proponents of 3A – “Winthrop Working Together,” working together for whom? Whose interests are they fighting fiercely to protect, clearly not our residents? The Councilors who voted No to the 3A recommended plan placed the interests of residents above those of developers, lobbyists.
Meanwhile, proponents of 3A continue to spew the same old misrepresentations and falsehoods; therefore, we are compelled to refute them, yet again.
1. Misrepresentation: Proponents of 3A state that: the Recommended 3A plan will result in “no new housing development, no increased occupancy, and zero impact on our community.”
Rebuttal: Are these proponents that naïve or do they really think that our residents can be so easily duped? The very purpose of 3A – a densification law –is for the State to intrude upon our community, take control of our zoning laws, eliminate most local regulations and processes for development, and strip local property rights of our citizens; all for the purpose of more housing (either new units or reconfigured ones) in order to increase occupancy and overpopulate our town. In fact, just this week, Attorney General Andrea Campbell stated in an interview: “If you have the T in your community, as a public good you have an obligation to build more dense housing.” Meanwhile, Winthrop remains one of the most densely populated communities in the nation? So what does it mean for existing residents if we further densify?
For compliance to the 3A Zoning Act, Winthrop is required to zone for a MINIMUM of 882 units. The law does not specify the MAXIMUM number of units that are allowed to be built or reconfigured in these zones. From the State’s perspective, the more the better! If the State secures a “Yes on 3A” from our town, nothing in this law prohibits overdevelopment with very little regulation. Its’ goal of more housing and occupancy is achieved, regardless of the cost to our residents.
Contrary to statements, there is no “credit” for existing units under 3A. The EOHLC has been abundantly clear on this point. In addition, both the Attorney General and the EOHLC refused to issue a statement that 3A doesn’t supersede condo documents. In fact, quite the contrary. In response to our request for a statement, the agency updated their FAQ section to include language CONFIRMING that 3A’s version of “multi-families” (i.e. No minimum bedroom size, No maximum number of bedrooms, and No occupancy limits) could be “developed as of right should a property owner choose to develop it” in the 3A zoning district. Is anyone aware of condominium documents that included the words, “No occupancy limit”? Yet, 3A prohibits an occupancy restriction.
Proponents who claim “no impact from 3A” most likely don’t live in a proposed designated zone, and are all too eager to relinquish the rights of Winthrop’s “zoned residents.” Don’t get too comfortable — Your neighborhood could be next! Will you still claim “no impact from 3A”? The State has the power to change the rules, require more zones, and add more required units, all at its whim and without local input or control. Do proponents of 3A really expect us to believe that the State will be satisfied with “no new development” in Winthrop?
2. Misrepresentation: Proponents of 3A state that: Winthrop will lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant funding needed to cover all our fiscal expenses, unless the town approves 3A.
Rebuttal: This is the height of irony! Do proponents really believe that Winthrop will build “zero new units” and yet the State will “reward” the town with huge grant funds for “doing nothing”? In what fantasy land are these proponents living? Reality check: there are 350 communities in Massachusetts, all vying for the same limited grant money from a State with its own fiscal woes and few available resources! If the State had money and wanted to incentivize communities to increase housing, then it would have “guaranteed funding” within 3A. Yet not a dime has been guaranteed. The State is shifting the financial burden of over-densification onto the MBTA/3A communities and its residents.
To proponents of 3A, good luck promoting the fantasy that Winthrop will get “a lot of something for nothing”! Our residents are not as gullible as you would hope! Regardless of 3A, our town remains eligible for federal funds and state funds not on the 3A grant list.
3. Misrepresentation: Proponents of 3A state that: a Special Master will be appointed by the State to decide 3A compliance for us.
Rebuttal: This flagrant inflammatory fearmongering comment derives from an early brief by the Attorney General in the Milton case. The Attorney General had asked Justice Georges to allow her to appoint a special master to create a zone in Milton after their election overturning the 3A plan. The single justice not only refused to grant this request, he sent the case along to the full panel of justices for them to determine whether 3A was enforceable at all and whether the Attorney General had any authority to enforce this zoning mandate. To suggest that some outsider is going to come into Winthrop (and into the approximately 30 other towns rejecting 3A) is misleading.
4. Misrepresentation: Proponents of 3A state that: Winthrop will be sued by the State and it will be very costly for the town.
Rebuttal: There are now over 30 communities refusing to comply with 3A and more are joining this list every day. There is safety in numbers. The suit with Milton, in which they chose to challenge the State’s action against them, has yet to be decided by the Mass SJC. Will the State spend its scarce resources in suing all these communities and risk its political good will with citizens? Even if the State attempted to do so, what more could it do to these non-compliant communities, other than withhold eligibility for specified grants! In addition, our town need not spend any money to challenge the State’s punitive withholding of non-guaranteed grant funds. The town can just accept this ineligible status for funds, which in fact may be negligible or non-existent. The associated costs to our community for over-densification will most likely far outweigh any meager “grant bone” tossed to us.
In conclusion, the Town Council’s “No Vote” on the Planning Board’s “3A Recommended Plan” is a win for the good people of Winthrop in preserving our quality of life and protecting our citizens’ rights! This is within the purview of the Town Council, and not the authority of the presently appointed Planning Board members. We should be proud that the Town Council upheld our democratic process and did not succumb to the tactics or pressure from those parties who want to subvert this process and protect their own selected interests.
Carol A. Facella
Carole Mietzsch
Diane Sands
Kenneth Sands
Christian Buonopane
Diana Viens
Mark Sennottv