I agree with the community coalition, which spent months of meetings discussing the 2000-2070 Bryant Project. This plan creates a "Beauty on Bryant" that includes: - 50% Land Dedication to the City to build affordable housing and community-serving spaces, with those affordable units designated for residents earning up to a maximum of 55% of the Average Median Income, with funding pre-dedicated by the CIty to build these affordable units, with shovels in the ground simultaneously to build the affordable units at the same time as the market rate units next door. - 100% Union Built, with maximized local hires and community apprenticeships - Both buildings would equally share the responsibility of accommodating a 1:1 replacement of 50,000 sq. ft. of affordable PDR space containing at least: · 15,000 sq. ft. nonprofit arts space · 15,000 sq. ft. maker and gathering space · 15,000 sq. ft. fabrication, manufacturing, repair The Beast on Bryant is opposed by the SF Building and Construction Trades Council, the SF Labor Council, the project’s direct neighbors and thousands of community members. The developer has fudged the numbers, providing only 18,000 sq. ft of develop-able affordable housing, although the minimum by law should be at least 22,750 sq. ft. He has replaced the 50,000 sq. ft. of PDR space with only 3,983 sq. ft. Should the project proceed, it will cause significant economic and social changes in the immediate area that will result in physical changes, including impacts on air quality, traffic and transportation, as well as negative impacts on the Calle 24 Latino Cultural District. (See CEQA guidelines, 15604 (e)). We ask that you postpone any decision on this project until our community concerns are addressed and studied with community input, and the project becomes a true Beauty on Bryant. For more information: http://www.beautyonbryant.org/calendar

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Luke Messer is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids' lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids' school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It's just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Lou Barletta is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids' lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids' school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It's just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Brett Guthrie is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. David Roe is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Matt Salmon is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Tim Walberg is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Glenn Thompson is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids' lunch money—by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids' school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can't learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It's just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] We're calling on Rep. John Kline, the chair of the education and workforce committee, to clean up this bill and protect our kids before it hits the House floor for a vote. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids' lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids' school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It's just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Virginia Foxx is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that she hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

There are already enough bullies in the lunchroom. Now some members of the U.S. House are effectively trying to take our kids’ lunch money -- by putting forward a bill that guts school lunch programs. An ill-advised update to the Child Nutrition Act came out late last month that jeopardizes free and reduced school lunch for millions of children. This legislation is moving quickly, and we need to stop the provisions that could lead to empty stomachs from coast to coast. Taking away kids’ school lunches is being hailed as the fiscally responsible thing to do, even when we know the opposite is true. When students are hungry they can’t learn. Providing lunch to children whose families are struggling with food insecurity is a simple investment to make sure that those children are learning. It’s just common sense. The House Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill includes sneaky provisions that would gut the school lunch program -- and would roll back years of progress. [1] If passed, more than 7,000 schools would have their school lunch eligibility revoked. And those more than 7,000 schools? They serve more than 3 million kids [2] Rep. Duncan Hunter is a member of the critical House Education and Workforce Committee which will be taking a look at this language over the next week or so. It is critical that he hears that we must protect hungry kids, not take away their lunches. [1] http://goo.gl/I85mAI [2] http://goo.gl/YU5Z7I

The Cabot project has been in the Schematic Design phase of the MSBA process since August 6, 2015. The project entered this phase with the current design as the preferred design, and the project team has been working on refinements to the design for the past 8 months. The project team has sought and considered input from the school administration, parents, neighbors and organizations such as Safe Routes to School and the Newton Historical Commission throughout this time and has worked in an open and transparent manner. The Cabot School Building Committee voted unanimously, excepting one abstention, to approve the current design on April 5, 2016. The city’s agreement to purchase the property at 23 Parkview Avenue this winter helped in this process by providing the opportunity to improve the traffic flow around the school site. It did not, in any way, offer new options for the placement of portions of the school building. All land that is currently available for siting the school structure has been available to the team throughout the design process. While there has been a request by the Ward 2 City Councilors to explore alternative design options subsequent to the approval of the current design, these options are not new concepts. Moreover, their request stems largely from meetings with a small group of residents outside the public process focusing on the aesthetics of the design that are, by nature, subjective . Re-examining alternative design concepts now, would obstruct the open, collaborative committee process and would result in costly delays to this and other school projects in the city. If this delay and reconsideration is permitted, a precedent would be set for similar obstructions to this project later in the process and/or to future building projects throughout Newton. Additionally, the community’s trust in the honesty and fairness of the building process would be significantly eroded. Residents of Newton want to avoid the type of delays and cost overruns experienced in the Newton North High School project, not repeat them. This is precisely why adhering to the open, public design process and supporting the design approved by the CSBC on April 5, 2016, is so important.