Dear Editor of HopNews,

In this year’s Annual Town Meeting, I urge the voters of Hopkinton to look closely at Article 33, Municipal Parking. 

Article 33 has a personal significance to me, as the home my husband and I bought 30 years ago faces the property of 10 Walcott St. This property is one of the parcels under consideration for municipal parking. I have many issues with this article. Issues with what it proposes, the cost of the proposal and the fact that the article goes against the will of the voters. I plan to attend Town Meeting and hope to have the ability to ask questions and make comments. I realize, however, that it can be difficult to get across your thoughts when you only have the microphone for 2 minutes. I appreciate the opportunity to express my thoughts to you, the editor of HopNews, and to your readers.

This is not the first time that these parcels of land have been proposed for parking. In the 2019 Town Meeting a similar proposal was defeated by 62%. (Article 51)  In 2019, there was a robust discussion of the pros and cons of spending $1.5 million to develop what was deemed an unsuitable piece of land for cost effective parking. I am disappointed to see this same proposal 5 years later for twice the projected cost.

In the 2019 Town Meeting, we approved spending $520,000 for the 6 Walcott Street property for the purpose of municipal parking. The house was to be removed and the land used for parking. In this same article we approved $500,000 for a parking lot across the street at 25-35 Main Street. Today, we have 31 parking spaces behind 25 – 35 Main Street but 6 Walcott Street remains untouched. Why has the parking at 6 Walcott Street not yet been implemented?

In the documents associated with Article 33 there is a conceptual drawing of the proposed parking plan. This 2-dimensional drawing does not take into account the topography of the property. The property is not flat. The drawing is a simplistic image of as many parking spots that could be squeezed into the parcels of land. I am not an engineer, but from the many discussions I have heard over the years about this property, I have learned that these parcels of land would need extensive work to support a parking lot. There would be a need for retaining walls as well as a drainage solution to contain the runoff. As an abutter to this property, I would hope there would be enough money for appropriate lighting, landscaping and privacy buffer for the neighborhood. All of these factors would affect the number of possible parking spaces and cost.

In the Frequently Asked Questions associated with Article 33, look closely at the math used for the per parking space cost.

The town’s math :  2,975,000 / 189 = $15,740 per space

We would not be building 189 spaces, 18 spaces belong to the Masonic Temple and 66 spaces are already there. As mentioned in the supporting document to Article 33, we would be gaining approximately 105 spaces.  Also, we need to remember that we paid $520,00 in 2019 for 6 Walcott Street.

My math: 2,975,000 + 520,000 = 3.495,000 / 105 = 33,285 per space, more than twice than what the Town would have us believe.

Where did the cost of $2,975,000 come from if the project still needs to go through the design phase? If this article passes and in the design process it becomes evident that the parking lot would cost more than $2.975,000, what will happen?  Why are we being asked to pledge this money before we have the full picture?  In the 5 years since it was part of Article 51 and voted down, why haven’t any of the issues discussed then been accounted for in this current article?

What does it mean by “…the Select Board shall deem to be in the best interest of the town”. Will we not have the ability to be involved in the design process if Article 33 is approved in Town Meeting?

Last but not least, this land is located in a neighborhood: Claflin Street, Walcott Street,  A, B and C streets. It is home to many people of all ages. The streets are narrow with few sidewalks. We need to consider how the traffic of several hundred more cars entering and exiting all day long would affect the neighborhood. An entrance on Claflin Street would be particularly worrisome as the street is barely wide enough for two cars.

Downtown Hopkinton needs more parking! Living downtown, I know this well. I do not support the proposed parking lot in Article 33 and I encourage voters to join me in voting no at the Annual Town Meeting.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts, 

Pam Mitchell, 5 Claflin Street