NOTE: This press release was just received by Village14 from the Massachusetts Sierra Club and is printed here verbatim.
On Tuesday November 7, the Massachusetts Sierra Club encourages Newton residents to vote for the following Newton City Council candidates:
– Ward 1-at-large: Councilor Alison Leary & Nicole Castillo
– Ward 2-at-large: Councilor Susan Albright for re-election
– Ward 3-at-large: Andrea Kelley
– Ward 5-at-large: Councilor Deb Crossley for re-election
All these candidates are running citywide.
In light of the federal situation and challenges at the state level in environmental enforcement, the role of city governments is more vital than ever for protecting our air, water, and climate.
Before making its decisions, the Massachusetts Sierra Club Political Committee spent hours speaking with municipal candidates around the region this year, reviewing their positions, history, and responses to our questionnaire in order to make the difficult decisions about which local candidates deserve Sierra Club endorsements.
In Newton, we have endorsed those 5 candidates for things like their commitment to climate action and environmental justice, preserving green space, activism on gas leaks, supporting investments in clean energy and emissions reduction, backing for creative ways to improve the sustainability in the City of Newton, and so on. We urge our members to vote for these candidates to help strengthen environmentalism in both Newton and the Commonwealth as a whole.
If you are uncertain where to vote, visit www.wheredoivotema.com to find the correct location.
Sincerely,
Bill Humphrey, Newton MA
Chair, Massachusetts Sierra Club Political Committee
I think this is a mistake that unnecessarily politicizes the Sierra Club’s mission. I like the Sierra Club, but [as a Newton voter] I find these endorsements presumptuous. Awards? Yes! Endorsements? Nope!
Mike, I’m not sure I follow your concern. It’s a political organization that makes endorsements all over the place every year. We’ve endorsed so far this year in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Saugus, Newton, etc. for municipal elections as well as the legislative special elections around the state. Next year the organization will endorse in statewide races and federal elections as usual. Not sure you can “politicize” a political organization.
This is not a surprising list of endorsements. All the candidates listed here are strong, consistent, environmental advocates.
The only thing I’m curious about is City Councilor Norton’s role in the process, given that by day she is the Sierra Club’s Massachusetts Chapter Director.
@Councilor Norton were you involved in endorsing your colleagues or, in two instances, challengers? If so, or not, how did this process work?
I find this interesting because the selections here are candidates who may share your values when it comes to some environmental issues but certainly come down quite differently in the area of smart growth where you have been a dependable opponent?
Hi Bill– I’ve always considered the Sierra Club to be an environmental organization, not a political one. But I’m not a member, so maybe I’ve misinterpreted the mission. I take no issue with the Massachusetts chapter endorsing in state wide races. I’d be surprised if you didn’t. Frankly though, as a Newton resident [and voter], I think it’s presumptuous for the Sierra Club to be telling me who to vote for in a local election. It’s just my opinion.
@Greg: The volunteer Political Committee makes endorsement decisions, I played no role in it. PS I support smart growth, I do not support giving away public land, or having the taxpayer subsidize multi million dollar projects.
Below is the email I got from Bill Humphrey. Most people may not know (though I was not surprised) that the Sierra Club now appears to have a litmus test for being considered an environmentalist — you must support high-density housing in Newton.
But I’m still puzzled by the statement about “if” the city councilors were to move/keep trash disposal out of Newton. We already do send our trash outside of Newton. Does the Sierra Club want Newton to reopen the Rumford Ave landfill? Personally, I’m unhappy we now ship our yard waste out of Newton instead of composting here.
I recommend everyone watch the “Upzoning” video of last year’s discussion with the Ballard/Seattle people if you still think higher density is the answer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jex02iV52pM
I was planning to put my Sierra Club questionnaire up on my website anyway, and I’ll try to do that later tonight. Here’s the Humphrey letter:
@Julia – thanks for sharing that letter. It’s very helpful to see what they factored in to their endorsements and what they ignored.
Emily:
So you support smart growth if it is not originally city owned property, or too big, or the developer makes too much profit, or if the subsidy is too much, or…
At some point, the perfect doesn’t exist. That’s a hard lesson to learn when it comes to development. My personal take is I’ll take the good project over the perfect project. If you are saying you are a smart growth proponent, I’d think it would be helpful for you to articulate what type of project you find acceptable. Are any of them of any significant size?
There are times I agree that growth ends up being bad. Let me give you an example. Court Street was a mistake. The new storage facility is another. Sometimes projects that have some good attributes aren’t good enough.
But there is a reason why urban infill and suburban smart growth gets a premium in cost and subsidy. These projects are hard to do, hard to zone, hard to permit, hard to find the balance between the doable and the undoable. Some of that is NIMBYism, some of that is just a difference in opinion as to the future of our transportation corridors, but all of it adds to processes like Austin Street and Orr Block, multi-year processes driven, grinding down opponents and advocates alike.
With all that said, while you may personally be in favor of smart growth, based on your legislative record and your many postings here, I think there is a disconnect between your personal beliefs and your public actions. I doubt even your supporters in Ward 2 would describe you as in favor of smart growth.
Also, what subsidy is Orr Block getting? Did I miss a meeting?
Surprise surprise, the Sierra Club set up an endorsement process for municipal elections for the first time, and chose to endorse one of their Board Members for City Council.
Given the obvious conflicts of interest involved between the leadership of the Sierra Club and the Newton City Council, I recommended to Bill Humphrey that they not pick Newton to be the first Municipal election in which to make endorsements. Not able to disagree with my points, Bill chose not to respond.
I was not endorsed as I chose not to respond to their questionnaire because of the conflicts.
Evidence of the endorsement folly, the Sierra Club endorsed challengers that have no public record, and would probably agree to anything for endorsements on their first run, thereby committing themselves to issues for which they are ill prepared to defend should they be elected.
My environmental record and commitment is solid, not so for some of those endorsed, who fought endlessly to oppose open space on Crescent St, Austin St, and lobbied to take down trees at the Library.
Reality Check: Julia Malakie was not endorsed by the very organization created to save trees? Julia is an obvious first choice, and everyone in city politics knows this, but she missed the key criteria of not being a member of a political party.
Really?
Councilor Cote, raises an interesting point. I did not realize that Councilor Leary is on their board.
By the same token after reading this…
I also wonder if they would have disqualified their own state director for an endorsement?
Julia Malakie’s absence from this list makes me take it with a huge grain of salt. What the heck are they thinking?
Everything below is me speaking for myself and isn’t a statement from Sierra Club or the political committee.
Councilor Cote – The Sierra Club has endorsed in plenty of municipal elections previously – you can talk to some of the sitting incumbents in Cambridge or Saugus for example – and we followed our standard process. This was the first time in Newton, and the only deviation from standard practice for Newton was that staff did not weigh in, to avoid any conflict of interest given Councilor Norton’s role. You were invited to participate and declined very forcefully. Councilor Leary is no longer a board member of Sierra Club, but she is of course an environmentalist and a sitting member of the council.
Julia – I provided a lengthier answer than usual as a courtesy to you, given your extensive environmental work, in an attempt to explain why some of the answers were concerning to the committee. I figured it would be more appropriate to have a private discussion than to hash it out in public but between this comment and what I’m told you will have said on the NewTV pre-record, I will defend the decision a bit further here. “Development” was a lot less of a factor than your stated view that Newton City Councilors have no responsibility to think about how their decisions (especially on waste and energy) in Newton affect other cities and towns around the state, which we had emphasized in the questionnaire particularly meant low-income and non-white communities. It’s a state organization, not a city organization, and part of my role is to make sure local candidates are thinking about what impact their choices will have on other communities, instead of putting each city in a silo and attempting to make it “Green” by externalizing every possible harm outside of city lines. I don’t even think that’s your position, but if you’re dismissing that considering on the grounds it wouldn’t be your responsibility as Councilor to consider other communities, then I figured I should encourage you and any other candidate to start thinking about those ramifications. The 21st century is not the time to be perpetuating old cycles of environmental relationships between affluent suburbs and less fortunate and less politically empowered communities.
I take personal offense at my omission from their list, but I think the omission of Julia Malakie is even more egregious given her stellar record on tree preservation and planting.
I’d like to think that my role as the founding President of the Friends of Hemlock Gorge followed up by decades of service organizing twice a year cleanups and tree preservation activities ( Friends of Hemlock Gorge received an award from Green Newton), my role as the original sponsor of the Million Solar Roofs Program in Newton, active participation in removals of invasive plants, and member of the Advisory Board of the Newton Conservators
might have earned me recognition from the Sierra Club, but it’s a bigger honor to be excluded with Julia Malakie.
Julia and Emily not qualified ! LOL!
Funny bedfellows the Sierra Club and the real estate development community.
The reason projects are hard to build and more expensive in the city and near suburbs is that the bulk of the contractor community lives out there. Their bids are lower not having to spend a good part of their day commuting. Their facilities are out where they are welcome and there is space. It’s economics. It happens naturally. There is less conflict and regulation. So let’s not invent yet another specious “environmental”argument to line the developer’s pockets.
@bill humphrey: The below is your opening email statement to the candidates regarding municipal elections:
“Dear candidate,
The Massachusetts Sierra Club’s political committee, of which I am the new chair (in addition to your neighbor in Newton), is excited this year to be expanding its participation in municipal races in a number of key cities across Massachusetts. More than ever before, cities will be responsible for reducing environmental impact and acting on climate change.”
The statement seems to indicate a new venture on your part, as your online Newsletters do not reflect any 2015 Municipal endorsements? (Please correct me if I missed them)
Board Member: Doesn’t clear the conflict litmus test, but that person would have to clarify the dates of being on the Executive Committee.
My recommendation to the Sierra Club remains that they should retrench and stay out of the Newton election process.
If we are really intent on environmental rectitude we first must look at housing teardowns. What greater environmental crime do we commit ?
Where are the Sierra Club candidates stand on this issue?
Where do you think Julia and Emily stand ?
I’m honored to be excluded with Brian — he’s got a longer record in Newton than me.
Yes, we expanded our participation in municipal races to include new cities not previously included. I wasn’t there in 2015 so I don’t know the 2015 records. I’m familiar with some of the 2013 records when there were definitely endorsements in municipal races although not in Newton. Neither Councilors Leary nor Norton had any role or input in our process and we maintained a wall of separation, so there is not really the conflict suggested here. Additional point: We can’t consider endorsements for incumbents who decline to answer the questionnaire, which was the case in Wards 1 and 3.
I think we need to separate 2 things: environmentalism and conservationism. Clearly, some people feel that being a friend to the environment in the sense that you want to preserve open space and trees is akin to being an environmentalist. In 2017 when we face the imminent threat of global climate change, it’s just not.
Rightly so, for groups like Sierra Club whose primary concern is the environment, the overriding goal is to reduce the impacts of man-made climate change. It would be a travesty for them to be focused on anything else.
So yes, if you value trees over solar panels and green space over smart growth development, you’re not an environmentalist in 2017. If a cost benefit analysis suggests that something reduces open space but also reduces our community’s impact on climate change, and you’re against it, you’re not an environmentalist. If you believe that making Newton a nice leafy city at the expense of poorer communities and the global climate, you’re really just not an environmentalist.
Sorry if that bothers you. I wish we weren’t faced with the imminent and catastrophic consequences of global climate change. But welcome to 2017, this is the world now, lets start living in it.
To say that those want to preserve open space and trees are not environmentalists is absurd.
And as far as valuing trees over solar panels making you not an environmentalist in 2017, that is also absurd. In fact MassDEP has a new solar policy that literally prioritizes solar projects over brownfields and industrial space over existing forests in order to NOT be encouraging trees to be cut down.
My last comment since as @emilynorton noted we are starting to get absurd commentary to defend an error in judgement.
@billhumphrey: 2013? Please name them.
Emily. You took the words right out of my mouth. There’s absolutely no reason why Newton should sacrifice open space or the natural environment to satisfy the quest for high density development. I was disturbed by an earlier comment that seemed to imply that it would be okay to chuck these assets aside for that purpose. Very short sighted indeed. This is best approached with the blinders off.
I’m also sorry that the Sierra Club felt compelled to make endorsements in this year’s municipal election and that it singled certain candidates out for endorsement since virtually all the candidates come to this election with strong environmental records and credentials . It might have been better if the Sierra Club listed the environmental assets and accomplishments of each candidate and let it stand at that. Why does high density housing seem to be trumping other considerations and accomplishments?
I belong t an organization that has taken its blinders off. I’m a member in good standing of Newton’s Chapter of “Our Revolution”, the organization that Bernie Sanders started after last year’s presidential election. A few weeks back, we got together to finalize our endorsements in this year’s municipal election. I had some misgivings about doing so, but I’m happy to report that we didn’t just automatically endorse candidates who backed Bernie. In at least one instance we chose a candidate who had backed Hillary Clinton over one that had backed the Bern because that candidate’s record and platform merited it. We also backed other candidates that didn’t support Bernie. While backing Bernie was a plus, we looked beyond a single factor or issue. That’s why the absence of long time environmental stalwarts like Julia and Brian from the Sierra Club’s list was so puzzling. Julia has planted trees all over this City and Brian had a big part in helping to save the Hemlock Trees in Hemlock Gorge. Trees capture carbon. Enough said.
Greg posted this quote from the Sierra Club…
“… the Massachusetts Sierra Club feels very strongly that we can only protect our state’s remaining green, open spaces from sprawl by limiting the push for new housing out into the less developed exurbs/rural areas, in part by providing a higher density of housing options closer to Boston in areas that are already no longer open space.”
In my opinion, this is a completely idiotic philosophy, and the reason why we have a severe housing shortage in this state.
We are hearing from citizens around the country about “green” organizations being co-opted by the Urban Growth Machine. This push for infill housing and moving people into dense apartments because it reduces the human footprint is yet another myth. In numerous reports cited by Joel Kotkin in his book, The Human City, moving people into dense cities, among many negatives, cause traffic jams and other related ripple effects. And until everyone has electric and autonomous cars, we get even more pollution. https://youtu.be/V5fqoo_S1pM Here’s the video they don’t want you to see because it shows Newton’s future and all the tricks the Machine uses to have its way with us. While I am it, another popular alternate fact/myth Andrea Kelley repeated during her debate is that high density housing brings down the costs of housing. Watch this video for real proof that statement is pure propaganda.
@Chris: Actually, as with global climate change, there is a scientific consensus around the need for more housing in the greater Boston area. There is a scientific consensus that smart growth and transit oriented development are better for housing costs, the environment, and the economy.
And just like global climate change, some people refuse to believe the scientific consensus because it is politically inconvenient for them.
If we’re going to have transit-oriented development, we need to greatly improve our mass transit infrastructure. Our MBTA and commuter rail trains and signals are falling apart – there are daily breakdowns – and too much of it isn’t ADA-compliant. The current configuration where all roads lead to Boston/Cambridge just doesn’t work. When my son was in college one town over, my 10 minute drive to pick him up would have taken 1-2 hours by public transit.
I’m a big believer in public transit – one reason I chose to live in Newton is because it’s on the T. But too much of the time, “you can’t get there from here”.