Newton Mayor Setti Warren makes a direct pitch for the proposed project at Austin Street in an oped published in today’s TAB, which was distributed via email to anyone on the city’s email list.
The Austin Street project provides Newton with options to maintain and grow diversity, welcome talented people of all kinds and maintain the dynamism of our city — not to close our doors to change, but still maintaining the unique character of our neighborhoods. Building a multi-use project including housing, retail, and parking on the Austin Street parking lot, in a village center with public transportation, fits our vision for Newton’s residents now and in the future.
Read the full column here and tell us why he’s right or wrong.
Eh. I don’t really agree with the Mayor here, and he is certainly putting lipstick on a ugly project in his description. But I do find it ironic that the loudest voices in the rooms shouted mostly about parking, and that is what they got in the end, the same level of their precious parking. Those of us who wanted village amenities for the next 30 years (new plantings, gathering spaces, historic lights, benches, handicapped access to the commuter rail), all that seems to have gone by the wayside.
If I can, I intend to be at the meetings and ask the question “where are the proceeds that were supposed to be invested BACK in the village?” “Is the same goals going to be applied to the other village center projects?” “Why is this project’s design so out of place with the rest of the village?” “why is an innovation center something we should support, when I don’t think anyone I know in the village was including it in their list of amenities?” “Why is the ground lease only worth $1,000,000, when other projects were willing to pay 5 times as much”.
I’d love to have a reasonable discussion about the questions to ask in these forums.
I’m left with a profound sense of disappointment with this process and the end result. The loudest voices got their parking, and the village residents are left with an ugly project with little community benefit. (and greg, improved parking meetings are NOT a community benefit. I can put in my quarter just find right now…)
A better Mayor would have coordinated the Walnut Street redo and Austin Street, and used this project as a catalyst to really change NEwtonville for the next 30 years. But hey, heavy parking users having parking and the developer making an extra few million is important too…
The only positive I see about this project is the creation of the affordable units. And that IS a positive. But this could have been so much more. Some of the other projects WERE so much more.
Wow, I apologize for the grammar and misspellings in my last post. Big fingers, small keyboard!
@Fig
Not sure the additional parking is due to the voices being the loudest, probably more that the concession is the easiest.
A project more in scale with the village would mean a substantial reduction in units, a less ugly building that matches the feel of the village would mean not using GreenStaxx, which was the whole rationale for choosing this developer.
As for the Mayor’s post- The proposal may reflect input- changes have been made– but I don’t believe that project as currently stands is something that the majority of Newton or Newtonville wants. He cites a vision for Newtonville, but it’s hard to see where in the process that vision was developed with those citizens in mind- the support from the Newtonville Association is strikingly and disturbingly absent.
Overall, I’ve had enough of the Mayor’s words. He has been unquestionably dishonest during this process. He starts with a competitive bid process, but disregards the bids and selects a developer based on their general characteristics. He says that we’d begin anew with a fresh slate, yet the project that was then shared with the community was basically the same as the one during the bid process. He says that there will be multiple points for community meetings throughout the remainder of the process, but as I showed last week, specific meetings are no longer happening that he promised. He has failed as a community leader through this process due to his continued dishonesty.
Fig is correct saying that parking was originally the loudest objection to the proposal. Heck, Kathleen Kouril Grieser even went so far as to organize an effort to inflate the parking study And when Shaws stepped up enforcement of its parking restrictions that was seen as proof that taking spaces from the municipal lot was a Armageddon in the making.
I’m interested in knowing how people who worried about this feel now.
And Fig you are absolutely correct to be asking questions about village improvements. I haven’t seen mention of that either way and the money should go to village improvements.
On the other hand, a repaved, redesigned, modern parking lot is certainly a benefit. You may not think it’s a big deal now but I suspect you’ll feel differently if it happens.
I keep reading about other towns whose community leaders, when wanting to revive their city’s center, fought against the meaning of urban renewal as building a more modern downtown, worked with HUD, and both preserved and built period friendly mixed use housing. I’ve already mentioned Middletown, CT, but Newburyport is a closer example.
I agree with other commenters that creating mixed use housing, particularly the few affordable units, using the Austin Street space is a good option, but am very disappointed in the appearance of the building and modernization of Newtonville. My vision would include celebrating the architecture of the past with modern amenities.
Evidence of the past in the present is insurance of a future.
Greg, that is a pretty light benefit. I was never one of the ones who believed in parking apocalypse (this time with more SUVs!). Yes, we get a nice, shiny new lot. But that is balanced by it being beneath a building to some extent, and the entrances and exits being less convenient. I never longed for a repaved, redesigned, modern parking lot, and I count that NOT as a benefit, but as a necessary accommodation to permit the project to even be discussed. All that really changes are the meters, and hey, those worked just fine.
Right now the fact that they will bury the electrical lines along Austin Street is a benefit, and I’m assuming the property will be landscaped professionally. I also like that there will be 5,000 square feet of commercial space, which will lessen the feel that the village is mostly along Walnut street.
As for parking being the loudest, Paul, were you at the meetings over the past few years. I recall certain business owners filing petitions to ‘save our parking’ and shouting over various city leaders. Frankly the parking issue was by far the biggest complaint, and it was always a red herring in my view. That was why I found it so frustrating, it sucked all the oxygen out of the discussion. The screams of parking apocalypse drowned out the questions of size, design, and accomodations. So now we get knowledgeable folks like Greg who are stating “but look at the shiny new parking lot!) when ALL of the proposals were offering that, and some of the others had far more community impacts or looked better. Give me the Bnai-Brith design, or the $5,000,000 purchase price. Instead we get a minor “green” impact and a shorter construction period by a few months, in exchange for an ugly ugly building and limited real community impact.
So what to do. I’m hoping that my alderpeople pivot quickly to making this project better and fulfill the promises their predecessors made to the village. This project was promised to us not in a vacuum but in the context of community renewal. Don’t take your eyes off the ball, despite the shiny parking meters (which the city probably won’t support anyway from a technological standpoint).
@Fig
I agree that parking proponents were the loudest, just suggesting that its not the volume that led to that concession, but rather the ease of that concession itself.
I’m fairly cynical about the process. I think the lumps and bumps in the process, particularly related to parking, were planned ahead of time. Knowing that many in the community would oppose the project no matter than specifications, better to start with something even LESS attractive, i.e. more units than the Mayor/Austin St Partners were expecting, and fewer parking spaces than needed. It just gave room for so-called compromise, which they Mayor is highlighting now, and end with a plan that you were hoping for in the first place. I don’t believe this was a good-faith process, and the glaring issues over the past year supports that.
fignewtonville, I have to say something that will probably be unpopular in many quarters. Of course, I did not go into politics to become popular (and, as my loving wife frequently reminds me, there is very little danger of that). So I am going to say it anyway.
Despite the best efforts of a lot of good and well-intentioned people–and despite my differences with him on many issues, I would include Mayor Warren among them–Newton puts up a helluva fight and makes it very hard to get anything done, whether good, bad or indifferent. Perhaps a benign monarchy could have pushed through a project that would truly serve as a monument to good planning and smart growth in Newton. But the democratic process (process, process, process, process, process) is incredibly ill suited to the task. So, sadly, we always seem to end up with a horse drawn by committee.
@Ted
Perhaps a clearly defined mandate supported for more development in the City would be a start. It’s particularly hard to get things done when it’s far from clear whether the citizens want them done.
You’ve stated that for issues of social justice, which you include affordable housing, you are going to push through with what you believe, even if the majority of the City disagrees with you. It’s not surprising that process is slow. Alignment is tough when you’re pushing uphill.
@Ted
One other point.
I hardly understand how the specific issues in this case– a flawed developer selection process that led to Newton leaving $4 million on the table with no good rationale, a design that is universally considered ugly, etc.– what those have to do with “process, process, process”- those have been the Mayor’s choices alone. No committees, no negotiations, just the Mayor.
Feel free to clarify if I’m missing something.
Paul, I don’t agree with your underlying premise. A nonbinding vote in a low turnout election does not equal a mandate. When Newton voters had a chance to cast a binding vote to repeal Chapter 40B, they overwhelmingly rejected it in favor of promoting more affordable housing. The process for redeveloping the Austin Street parking lot has left a lot to be desired, no doubt about it. Now it is in the lap of the Board of Aldermen, acting in its capacity as a special permit granting authority. This is a quasi judicial function. We are not supposed to act as delegates or to represent a particular constituency or group. Our job now is to exercise our judgment objectively, dispassionately and fairly determine whether the project satisfies the criteria for granting a special permit and, if so, to impose conditions that mitigate the impact of the project.
Ted, you can’t have it both ways.
You can’t complain about how hard it is to get things done, yet dismiss all opportunities to gain support from the citizen for those actions. There simply isn’t clear support for Austin St. You can’t argue otherwise. There may be supporters, and there may be opponents, but you have no idea if the majority of the electorate supports the project. That’s a problem.
You have a disturbingly dismissive attitude towards the opinions of your fellow citizens. You don’t know better than the rest of us.
I’ve read the relevant statute on the role of Alderman. There is a lot of leeway to act according to the interests of the citizens desires, and other fellow Aldermen have stated that point on this blog. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
If you want to do this contrary to the wishes of the citizens, no one can’t stop you from voting that way. But you have a choice.
Quasi-judicial isn’t a real thing. Enough.
Prior to the proposal for Austin Street, the parking lot was declared surplus on February 6, 2012 by the board of Aldermen.
How is it, that after all cajoling, public parking is so significant? Seems to me the original process of declaring the lot surplus was flawed. If that was flawed, how many other lots declared surplus are in in the same boat? I think we have an undercurrent, and somebody should seek its source!
@Paul – Quasi-judicial is a real thing. Some parts of an alderman’s job involve taking a position that can be based on whatever their constituents want and what their personal views suggest. For other parts of the alderman’s job, regulatory things like granting special permits, there are substantially more restrictions on the aldermens’ decision making process.
If the alderman grant a permit under one set of circumstances to citizen A and they deny a permit under those same circumstances to citizen B, because of constituent pressure, that decision can get tossed out by the courts.
There’s certainly lots of grey areas but there is definitely a legal distinction between the way some aldermanic decision making (e.g. granting permits) need to be made and others (changing an ordinance).
Jerry, your points are all excellent.
I would just hone the legal distinction between the Aldermen hearing special permits, and considering changes to an ordinance. In hearing special permits, the Aldermen are not acting as Aldermen, i.e, as our (elected) legislative body. They are acting as our special permit granting authority, and as you state, are constrained by ordinance requirements (and G.L. c. 40A). Technically, they don’t have constituents. In considering changes to an ordinance, they are of course acting in their legislative capacity.
Ted, I understand the point you are trying to make. I’m not an idealist or a NIMBY person. But I’ve seen other cities (including Boston, and that is saying something if anyone here knows Boston’s development process) handle this type of development with more openness, clarity, and above all leadership. Why punt to that committee at all? Why take 10 years to get this done if it was just going to be decided based on random judgements by the Mayor (perhaps buttressed by the report from said committee?)
I’m not looking for perfection, but a little sanity and organization would be nice. And I’d appreciate your/Emily and the other aldercritters chiming in regarding the use of the $1,000,000 ground lease upfront payment.
Paul, I don’t see the attitude you claim to see in Ted. I don’t agree with him all the time, but he has a set of principles and sticks to them, and he is elected by the people with openness about those principles. Govt doesn’t rule by referendum, so the only political mandate that matters is the ballet box. I know that can be very upsetting at times, but that’s the system. I’d rather have aldermen and alderwomen where I know where they stand. And I give Ted a lot of credit for being a consistent voice on these blogs. Which is pretty much why I know who he is. 😉
As for the parking being surplus, I always took that to mean the lot was surplus to the extent it could support a higher use WITH parking. In other words, just what we have now, same number of spaces, with a large project on top. A large, ugly project, but still the suplus designation does work.
Jerry and Barbara,
I understand your point, thanks for clarifying.
We have regulators throughout government that need to rule according to statute. Its regulatory in nature, I’ve never heard the term “quasi-judicial” anywhere besides Ted.
@Fig
I agree with you re: Ted’s positions– he is clear, for the most part. The Mayor not so much– he is much clearer now about his intent with affordable housing that he was during his campaigns. Same with many other Aldermen or School Committee members.
I haven’t used the word referendum in this thread– just mandate. Perhaps more folks being clearer on their views would give them the mandate to take actions they desire. Too many hide behind squishy positions.
Ted is an exception. I am well-informed on his views and would vote him out if he had a qualified opponent with different ones.
If you haven’t seen the attitude, look at prior threads. He is on record about not being concerned if the majority disagrees with him on some issues.
When voting on issuing a special permit, the board members are making a judgement only on whether certain facts about a project fall within the criteria required in the zoning of the site.
This site is zoned MU4 and “The proposed zone (MU4) is crafted to guide the redevelopment of the Austin Street lot in line with the guidance of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the 2011 Mixed-Use Centers Element, and the JAPG Report.” The BOA agreed to the zoning criteria and the site was re-zoned concurrently with the issuance of the RFP.
So that leaves very little wiggle room in the zone criteria to deny the special permit.
Charging a “nominal fee” to sell or lease the site for a mixed use development was established from the beginning.
And most people don’t go to hearings or read blogs but might read the Tab’s short articles, print or online, so they will believe the mayor when he says, like the ASP PR spokesperson he is, that the developer listened to our input, made the changes we wanted and now we have the best vision for Newtonville’s future.
And tell me again how this complete departure from the architectural nuances of Newtonville is “maintaining the character of our neighborhoods.”
Again, I like the project but would have preferred another road had been taken in its design.
Paul, I’ll go on record here. I am a progressive liberal, and instead of moving toward the middle to keep getting reelected, I would much rather pull the middle toward me.
Oh, and Paul, you don’t have to take my word for it that the special permit granting authority is quasi judicial in nature. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has made that pellucid.
@ Ted – there you go again, hiding behind a group of (let me see if I can get this right) left-wing agenda 21 socialists like the SJC. Direct unfettered democracy is the ticket – plebiscites for example have a great track record http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0819.html. How silly of our Founding Fathers (oops, Founding Persons) to have complicated our lives with all these different branches of government, representative bodies, checks and balances, and so forth.
DING, DING, DING ! – The Village14 Word of the Week award goes to Ted Hess Mahan
Jerry, being part Irish, I just love words. And talking. As I may already have told you, the great Irish writers were all just failed talkers.
@jerry and @ted – I don’t know about you, but I’m not sure anyone but a lawyer would describe
as “pellucid” unless the gin had something to do with it. The term “quasi-judicial” is in there, though.
Actually @HLD, the second definition of pellucid is “(of music or other sound) clear and pure in tone.”
So, that SJC segment might actually need to be sung to make sense…
Is improving the Newtonville train station and making it ADA compliant the responsibility of the city or the MBTA or another entity? That is high on my list of village improvements.
Carry – The train station is a state responsibility.
@carry – I think making the Newtonville station (and Auburndale too if I recall) ADA compliant are longstanding issues, but yes it’s up to the state, and of course the real question is the dollars are huge and no one is willing to fund it. Rep Kay Khan has been on the issue for a while I think, and of course the new Secretary of Transportation http://www.mass.gov/governor/administration/cabinet/transportation/ Stephanie Pollack lives in Newton so she might be a good person to ask about the situation.
LOL, HL Dewey. Yes, well, it is the first sentence of the second paragraph that is pellucid.
Well, I think I may be buying @chris’ pitch: the section about
does kind of grab you with a sort of “Smoky Joe’s Cafe” atmosphere, the mystery of it has you wondering “Gosh, what will happen next? Will they get the permit for their curb cut?” and all. But I am neither a lawyer nor Irish so I have no idea what the tune is. One of you will have to hum a few bars and I will try to follow your lead. BTW as I look around the bar the place seems to have emptied out, so I think we may have successfully killed any remaining interest in this thread. Glad I could help out with that.
H.L. Dewey 🙂
Lock it up on your way out.
.. though don’t be surprised if you still get a few more late night revelers straggling into this thread before you lock the doors.
I use the term “pellucid” out of affection for Hon. Bruce M. Selya, a federal appeals court judge on the First Circuit, who has a penchant for using obscure words in his opinions. There is, of course, some irony my use of the term. Some might even call it otiose. Sadly, Village 14 does not yet have a “irony” font, let alone an “otiose” font.
Spelling and grammatical errors courtesy of autocorrect.
H L hold on a second before you turn that key …
THM –
well then you should definitely come down to Gregorian Rugs to tonight’s Nomad Story Slam and tell us all a “long way from home” story.
OK – now back to Austin St.
As for Austin St … I think it’s a good project. I think it will be good for Newtonville and good for the City.
I live in Upper Falls, one of the villages that doesn’t have a vibrant commercial village center (Needham St is something else again). The Upper Falls Variety store, my daily morning stop, shuttered its doors a few months back. What did them in was dwindling foot traffic as some of the nearby commercial spaces lost tenants. I think a project like Austin St in my village center would be a godsend.
A project like Austin St, that combines new residential housing right in the village center with some commercial space as well, seems to me to be the best shot in the arm that a village center can hope for.
In the earlier days of the project, much of the concern in Newtonville seemed to be that whatever benefit the new residential/commercial development would bring to village businesses would be more than outweighed by reduced parking.
Those parking concerns always seemed overblown to me but many others didn’t think so. So now we have a revised project on the table that addresses all of those parking concerns and it doesn’t seem to have increased visible support for the project even a bit. It seems that the same folks who were most vocal about parking have now shifted their arguments to other issues (look of the building, scale, process, etc).
My growing sense is that many (not all) of the opponents of the project will be opposed to ANY project there. For those folks, the specific objections they raise are just whatever they think will get traction at the moment, rather than just clearly saying I don’t want any new building there.
I think it’s important to address the real neighborhood concerns but distinguish them from tactical hand-grenades that opponents of the entire project will continue to throw out.
The newest proposal completely addresses the initial primary neighborhood concern (parking) and addresses somewhat the issue of the mass of the building. The project is likely to be the biggest single way to bolster the health and vitality of Newtonville village center in the next 10-20 years. Let’s get it built.
@ Jerry
It’s not a “good project”, at least not in Newtonville. Newtonville has its “vibrancy” , now in two parts, one on each side of the turnpike. A good project for Newtonville would have been a concerted effort at knitting that village together accrossthat divide.
Just imagine what might have been accomplished if instead of gerimandering a perfectly good parking facility into a short sighted and artificial attempt at injecting by means of a lump of additional housing some life into the perifery of the village, an air rights bridging of the highway with light commercial and some housing over , had been the center of effort here. Would there have been the citizen resistence we see here now?
I see no big idea here now, just a tired oversized block trying to justify itself with setbacks, a few trees, and a tricked up facade , an attempt to reduce its scale. Physicians can bury their mistakes, architects can only plant ivy.
PS,
And a lot of “ivy” gets planted in Newton
It’s never been about the parking for me, but then I walk past it most days to do my errands. The new Craft Brew store makes my trips longer though; I can’t seem to resist its temptation. And then the banana ice cream is always whispering to me.
I was concerned about the height and mass and that has now been addressed so that’s great with me.
The modernization of Newtonville with this building design when other towns have successfully revived their town centers while paying homage to the past disappoints me, but I still support it completely.
So I disagree somewhat with Jerry about shifting arguments.
@Blueprintbill – We could discuss the virtues of building a project to knit Newtonville together by building over the Turnpike – an interesting idea if the economics could be made to work. Frankly though that has just about nothing to do with the Austin St project.
This is a project to re-purpose a surplused city owned property on Austin St.
“It seems that the same folks who were most vocal about parking have now shifted their arguments to other issues (look of the building, scale, process, etc). My growing sense is that many (not all) of the opponents of the project will be opposed to ANY project there.”
@Jerry
I’ve also been focused on the look and scale of the building. It may make you feel better to push this project on the many citizens who oppose it by labeling them as unreasonable, but like Marti, I’ve been clear: I’d be fine with a 30-40 unit building that matched the current feel of the village.
@Paul – I didn’t intend to label everyone who opposes the project as being unreasonable. I take you at your word that you (and others) would support a modified project.
That being said, I do believe that there also a fair number of people who will oppose any version of this project. I find it telling that when the developer nearly completely addressed the #1 issue that was raised by many, many people earlier, there’s no indication that they even moved the needle slightly on the number of people still opposed to the project.
As a resident on the outer limits of Newtonville, I am already feeling “hemmed in” by the massive developments going up both at the Waltham and Watertown town lines, as well as concern about the future impact on traffic going through Newtonville. It’s great for Russo’s and Stop & Shop, I guess. Near my home, there are several new very large houses going into lots that once contained smaller dwellings that once had an actual front yard. Something huge is being built to my rear. Adding another fairly large structure at the other end of my “space” is bringing on a severe case of claustrophobia. That said, after a quick review of the proposal and design I don’t see any mention of a “green” build – are there no requirements for LEED/solar/something that isn’t fossil fuel business as usual? Did I miss this? If not, it’s a missed opportunity for the town. I’m not saying I am for this development (I am not). I respectfully disagree with the Mayor on his reasons for why this new build is needed, affordable housing units notwithstanding.
@Jerry
There needs to some acknowledgement that a very bad process leads to suboptimal outcomes. While the parking is now no longer an issue for the most, this whole project began with a poorly supported notion that the parking wasn’t needed, hence the surplused nature of the lot. The Adminstration went to extreme lengths to keep pushing the notion that parking wasn’t needed, for a long time, with a poorly executed parking study that was refuted by legitimate people like Emily Norton. Then a compromise for more spaces but not all, then parking lifts (completely ridiculous) floated by the developer while the City remained silent- it’s been a slow drip of concessions away from the initial rationale for the plan- that we didn’t need the parking. So the plan, for the first time, now includes parking as desired. It’s been a little over a week. Residents have had a bad taste in their mouth about the whole thing, with a belief that the Mayor wanted affordable housing, citizens interests be damned. That feeling is going to dissipate in a week? Not at all realistic.
The real victim in this whole thing is actually affordable housing. The parking, the fake competitive bidding, the designs, the lack of transparency- it’s all been about as bad as could be. If THIS is what adding affordable housing feels like, it’s hard to see residents supporting it in the future. It’s been a disastrous process, so much self-inflicted, that could have been avoided.
@Paul: I’m fairly certain that talk about surplussing the Austin Street lot was going on before Mayor Warren was elected the first time. Maybe somebody who has been familiar with the process since the outset can clarify why those discussions started in the first place. http://newton.business/village14/wp-admin/edit-comments.php#comments-form
The Austin St lot actually has 159 spaces. 32 are for NNHS student parking permits, but they can be used by anyone outside of school hours/days. 127 parking spaces in the proposed development does not factor in the additional demand which will be added by proposed new businesses, guests of residents,, and future growth. In the special permit application the developer is requesting a waiver of 80 spaces from the number of spaces which the zoning ordinance would require.
@Gail
Don’t see how that’s relevant. He’s been Mayor for a 5 1/2 years. He’s had ample opportunity to ensure that we have a data-driven, robust evaluation of our parking needs in Newtonville, irrespective of what happened before his time.
He failed to do that. Instead he oversaw the process I highlighted above. A case study in poor management.
Paul, just to partially address your question. First came the plan to redevelop the parking lot, then Public Works was asked to surplus the lot.
11-24-2009 Real Property Reuse Report
“#150-09 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT requesting a discussion re the potential redevelopment of the Austin Street municipal parking lot in Newtonville for mixed-use development, including affordable housing.
ACTION: REFERRED TO 2010-2011 BOARD
NOTE: HAPI representative Phil Herr and Planning Director Mike Kruse presented this item to the Committee on May 25, 2009, when the Committee voted informally to support the concept.”
“Should the new Mayor choose to proceed, additional steps include:
refinement of the RFI by City staff and others
issuance of the RFI
review of responses by City officials/organizations including the Economic Development Commission and the Housing Partnership
declaration of surplus by the Commissioner of Public Works and subsequent
reuse process through the Board of Aldermen
issuance of a Request for Proposals”
@Jerry – my bad, I could swear I locked up when I left, but dear lord the riff-raff crept in under cover of darkness. You have hit the nail square on the head, though it is a very common dynamic growing perhaps too common in Our Fair City (see Rev Haywood’s recent op-ed in the Tab), but I think you have stated the problem very clearly and correctly:
I think any reasonable person would agree with you, and although I hate like hell to do it, I have to credit Signor H/M with the link to the shortest and most succint, and most definitely entertaining summary of this behavior:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWU
My mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts, I’m really not interested in meaningful discussion, and if I can figure out a way to get what I want your pathetic arguments are not going to deter me.
In such circumstances, the best thing one can do (in my opinion) is to go out of one’ s way to treat everyone involved in the process with the utmost respect, listen carefully to what they have to say, and move forward on a path that reasonable folks can agree upon. It’s called a political process, hopefully one that is genuinely democratic even though there will be some who may not agree with that assessment due in large part to their not getting the specific result that they wanted.
Great choice of video. Ted, how do you always seem to find just the right one?
I’m looking forward to my walks including anything nicer looking than that parking lot and this is certainly an improvement over that.
I’m assuming Jerry, and others, you have heard from more than the few on this blog who have switched to a new reason to oppose this project. I’ve only heard hopes for it to go ahead, in person.
It is reasonable to expect critism of the process, even from we who support the project. I think those of you who would appear to support any mixed use project on Austin Street, and without even ackowleging the process being flawed, belong in a clever video of your own because there are facts to support its problems, but facts be damned, right?
To HL’s point about treating everyone with utmost respect, and then proceeding reasonably, I agree. That didn’t happen here. I know there have been some vocal opponents who obviously only wanted their way and have worked hard to make their way happen, but throughout discussions lumping anyone with concerns in with them is not respectful. You diehard supporters tried hard to discredit our opinions with claims that we all are against affordable housing because NIMBYism and are bigots, with editorials and op-eds (such as when using words such as “character” and other perfectly good words claiming we are using them to be a throwback to a camouflage word in use in the 60’s, until we learned to not use any words that could be twisted from our meaning, such as “architecture,” “context,” etc. to try to describe our concern). You’ve continued to try to discredit every other concern with ridicule and then just disregard anything with real basis to get your way. Sounds similar doesn’t it. I think it’s time to stop.
The Lifts, really you liked the lifts?
@ Ted: “When Newton voters had a chance to cast a binding vote to repeal Chapter 40B, they overwhelmingly rejected it in favor of promoting more affordable housing.” When was that? I don’t remember any vote on 40B!
I am all for affordable housing: it just irks me to have 3 luxury units built for each of the affordable units; those luxury units taking the room/ open space we do not have; those luxury units raising the height of new structures, blocking the sun and the view of trees so important for one’s well-being.
The other day, I was walking on Austin St and I could see the trees in the church lot, the trees on the other side of Walnut St, the trees towards Lowell St and over the Pike. I could see the ugly parking lot, but still, there was a sense of space. Calming to my soul.
And why, oh why is the developer paying 1Million for land that is worth 5 Millions?????
@Isabelle – the statewide vote on 40B was Question 2 on the 2010 ballot. The link here also has the town by town tallies.
Thanks, Chris. 23,451 Newtonians voted for the law. I was probably one of them: how can you NOT vote for affordable housing? Or maybe I was savvy enough to foresee how the law would be used, alas! No recollection either way.