 I'm Aaron Holman, 12 Whittemore Street and a town resident for 23 years. I oppose Article 35 because it's a big step towards entirely eliminating Arlington's shrunken industrial area, turning it into housing and turning Arlington into a bedroom only community. I have four related concerns which I hope you share. Growing Arlington's business sector, creating more decent paying jobs in town, creating more affordable housing and limiting Arlington's ever growing dependence on its financially burdensome residential property tax. In every one of these aspects, Article 35 goes in the opposite direction or is significantly inferior to better alternatives. Article 35 has a glib language about allowing restaurants breweries wine bars and artists. Despite that Arlington's article 35 primary purpose is to turn Arlington's industrial area into another residential district, and that its primary use as measured by space will be for relative market rate housing. Any business use, first floor or otherwise, will be a flimsy facade. The purpose of an industrial area is to provide space for business activities that are incompatible with housing to mix in housing violates that purpose. And once housing is built there, any complaints by residents about business activities will trump the otherwise legitimate needs of businesses. This won't happen all at once. Instead, the residential camel will start by poking its nose into the industrial tent, a bit at a time, and then intruding itself more and more. Here's how it also shows how its proponents tried to sneak in housing. The original article mentioned residential housing only as a footnote. This was unacceptable and explicit language was added. However, the explicit language allowed twice as much residential space as light industrial use light industrial. That's the glib category name for restaurants wine bars etc. There's not too much by any standard and really does make the area primarily residential. It was too blatant, and it was turned back to allow only as much space as light industrial, not twice as much. This sounds better, but if you read on there's a loophole. All the redevelopment board needs to do is to find out that the lower limit is financially infeasible that's a quote for the developer and the ARB can raise that residential limit back up to twice as much as for business. Presto residential at last. This is sneaky and underhanded, because it gives the redevelopment board the discretion to allow what was previously removed, precisely because it was objectionable, and any developer will easily be able to cook up numbers that support a claim of financial infeasibility. So article 35 drafting and current languages flawed and you should vote against it, but that brings up to bigger issues. Why is Arlington's industrial area so underutilized and what kind of future Arlington do you want. Consider our low cost business space around a wife costs far less than space and Kendall Square or the seaport and Arlington space costs even less than a wife. We're nearby. We're less cramped. We have good infrastructure. So why is there such a lack of interest in our space. Two reasons. The landowners have not been interested in developing their land for business. They have let their land sit vacant for decades, waiting and wanting the kind of zoning change you now have before you. The other reason is that Arlington's town Arlington's town government has passively acquiesced making insincere, half hearted attempts to plan for these sites, as if all of a sudden the town, not the landowner could decide what would go there. They largely consist of plans for again housing with little or no business. Why follow the money. It does that because that's the easiest way to simply let more revenue roll in town budgets keep going up and keeping town officials well paid. Of course, that can't go on forever. But hey, that's problem for the future. Even a bedroom only community as this would facilitate is both economically and socially unhealthy for Arlington economically our share of property tax revenue from business, only 5% is way less than that of surrounding towns, typically 20 to 50% excessively depend on residential property tax that raises the cost to those who would move here makes diversity as a goal less achievable, and tends to push out longtime residents who can no longer afford it. How many of you are now paying $10,000 per year or more. Those of you who aren't soon will. Don't you deserve a break today. Socially it's unhealthy. Most jobs in Arlington are low paying retail jobs. Over 90% of Arlington residents have to travel elsewhere for work. Thus, people who work here can't afford to live here, and most people who live here can't afford to work here. This makes a mockery of the language in our master plan which describes Arlington as a town where residents live, work and play. Again, I urge you to vote against article 35. Should an amendment be proposed which would strip out its language allowing residential use, you should vote for that, but only as a way to mitigate the damage that article 35 would cause. Again, I urge you to vote against article 35. Thank you for listening.