Opposition To Lesley Zoning Petition

Tim
and
Amy
Rowe
 64
Gorham
St.
 Cambridge,
MA
02138
 
 








May
11,
2009



 SUMMARY:
The
Council
should
not
approve
the
Lesley
zoning
petition,
unless
 it
is
amended,
because
it
does
not
adequately
protect
existing
retail
on
the
site
 
 Members
of
the
City
Council,
 
 I
am
writing
to
respectfully
express
my
opposition
to
the
Lesley
University
zoning
 petition
before
the
Council
today.

My
concern
is
that
it
does
not
do
enough
to
 protect
the
existing
retail
in
the
development.
 As
drafted
the
petition
purports
to
protect
retail.

There
is
a
big
loophole,
however.

 We
learned
about
this
when
Lesley
recently
ousted
the
beloved
grocery
store
there.
 Lesley
proposes
that
the
retail
space
on
the
ground
floor
of
Porter
Exchange
be
 exempted
from
FAR
calculations.

In
exchange,
it
agrees
to
retain
retail
in
that
 location
in
perpetuity.

The
loophole
is
that
Lesley
may
insert
its
own
uses
as
 “retail”:
uses
that
do
not
serve
the
public
interest.

For
instance,
Lesley’s
textbook
 distribution
operation.
 Lesley’s
decision
to
oust
the
grocery
store,
reported
in
the
Boston
Globe
and
 elsewhere,
gives
the
appearance
that
Lesley
lacks
of
regard
for
the
public
interest
in
 regard
to
the
composition
of
retail
at
Porter
Exchange.

Lesley
had
vacant
basement
 retail
space
it
could
have
used
to
expand
the
bookstore.

The
grocery
store
could
not
 be
relocated
to
the
basement.

It
prioritized
its
internal
interests
over
the
 community’s
interests.

It
is
reasonable
to
expect
it
will
do
do
so
again
in
the
future.
 Accordingly,
on
behalf
of
myself
and
the
many
individuals
who
have
spoken
out
in
 dismay
at
the
recent
ouster
of
the
Japanese
grocery
at
Porter
Exchange,
I
 respectfully
register
my
opposition
to
this
zoning
petition,
unless
the
petition
is
 amended
to
properly
protect
the
existing
retail.
 
 























Respectfully
yours,























Timothy
Rowe