Anatol Zukerman’s column in last week’s TAB suggests, among other things, that property tax overrides wouldn’t be necessary if residents hadn’t “killed or mutilated” a number of development projects…
Why? Because a group of rich neighbors didn’t want to share their neighborhood with new neighbors. Similarly, the NIMBYs in other locations killed and mutilated other developments that could have cured our budget woes. Twelve years ago, a developer proposed the Chestnut Hill Square project that could have given the city $3 million in annual tax revenues, but it was cut down to $1 million. Recently, another developer proposed the Riverside Station development with $3 million of annual revenues, but that too was cut down to $1 million. A similar project was rejected at Marshall Plaza on Needham Street. Several smaller projects were also killed at various locations.
Anatol’s commentary covers a lot of ground. I agree with some points, disagree with others. The one point I agree with 100%, is Mayor Warren dropped the ball on the proposed public-private-partnership in Newton Centre that would have landed the city a new fire station and headquarters for free. The proposal, which was designed based on recommendations of the Newton Centre Task Force, would also have generated hundreds of thousands in annual property taxes for the city. I give Mayor Warren credit for restoring sound management practices to city operations. He’s proven himself to be an excellent manager. [However, I believe his staunchest supporters use a lot of “fuzzy math” to overstate his accomplishments]. As evidenced by Mayor Warren’s proposed package of three overrides, this city is in no position to turn down a $14M freebee like the Firefighters Triangle project. I think the Mayor needs to take another, more serious look at the proposal. And if he still chooses to reject it, I believe he owes the public a full explanation of his decision.
Hi Mike,
It’s only “free” if the municipal land, which includes a large portion of open space, has no value. I think it’s a terrible idea for the city to be gifting 2.3 acres of contiguous municipal and public park property to private developers.
Anyway, the entire premise of the would-be developers of firefighter’s triangle assumes the firehouse is decrepit, a fib that City Hall is starting to believe. Based on the Newton Tab’s photos of what’s “wrong” with it, the firehouse is not in bad shape at all. It’s no Newton North — in fact the state of the facilities aren’t out of line with what you’d see in other parts of Massachusetts. It’s just not up to Newton snob standards.
Anatol continues to misremember the history on Chestnut Hill Square. The city created a new zoning ordinance — the Planned Multi-Use Business District (PMBD) — that would have allowed the developer to build much more intensively than the current site. What got in the way of the $3 million-per-year development was the economic downturn. That the developer came back with a smaller-scale project cannot be pinned on the neighbors or the city.
I’m not as familiar with the particulars of the proposed development on Needham St., but I don’t think that neighbors stopped that project, either.
There ought to be, as I have written, much more intensive development on the Riverside site, but the neighbors aren’t the only culprits. A much larger share of blame should be put on the MBTA for the constraints on development.
Which is not to say that Anatol’s overall point is not valid; immediate neighbors do have too much influence in the design and approval process. But, it’s not costing us the millions that Anatol suggests.
@dulles– The undeveloped land has remained that way since colonial times, so how much value do you think it has, and to whom? Because of the land’s configuration and ownership boundaries, the only parties that could potentially benefit from any value, would be the City or the one private property owner in the triangle.
You refer to it as a “public park,” yet I can’t recall the last time I saw anyone use it in a recreational fashion. Probably because it’s across the street from the Newton Centre Playground, one of the largest and best parks in the city.
The Firefighters Triangle is not premised on the need to build a new fire station vs. renovate the old one. It’s concept is simple. Save the City of Newton millions of dollars [that they would otherwise spend on renovation or new construction], and generate millions more in new property taxes. Would you really rather raise property taxes to address this particular infrastructure issue?
It seems to me, you are seriously underestimating both the need, and cost to repair the problems of the fire station. The Firefighters Triangle proposal not only addresses a replacement for the fire station, it would also replace Fire Headquarters. In my opinion, it’s not only a good deal for the City, it’s a great deal. At the very least, the proposal should be entitled to a full public airing. Preferably before the ballot language is submitted for the general override, which in part addresses the projected cost of replacing the fire station.
Maybe if he lived in one of those areas he would feel differently. I don’t live in either of those neighborhoods he spoke about, however I bought my house in a non business zone. I would be totally upset if it changed and allowed business (BIG businesses) to move in, and affect my neighborhood traffic. Traffic all over Newton is terrible during commuting hours. He should try to live there and attempt to get to his house in a timely fashion after a huge development is built.
In addition, as we continue to add apartments to the city (AVALON), we add to the schools. More over crowding.
You need to look at the whole picture, and not just the dollar side. Maybe we should build a Wegman’s across the street from his home. . . . I bet traffic would stink!
Newton Mom,
I don’t condone Anatol’s unfortunate tendency to question the motives of those who don’t share his particular policy prescriptions. (He can be even harsher on those of use who do share his policy positions!) But, that doesn’t mean you should challenge his.
I am confident that Anatol would not feel any differently if he lived across the street from a proposed development. Anatol believes passionately in his urban vision and the benefits it would provide the city.
@Sean — looks like we both know Anatol pretty well.
Anatol’s obsession “NIMBY”-ism reflects his tendency of getting hold of a wrong-headed idea, then systematically flogging it until dead. To him, anyone who doesn’t want Newton to give away free stuff to developers is automatically a NIMBY. Who can protest free handouts legitimately, Alaskans?
@Mike — I’ve been on that parcel of public land next to the fire station a bunch of times this year. I guess you haven’t been there at the same time that I’ve been on it. Let’s guesstimate its land value by looking at buildable house lots… 0.25 acres right off Newton Centre I’ll lowball at $500k. So at eight lots (let’s say the fire station is the other 0.3), that’d be $4 million value. Let’s conservatively raise that by 50% because of it’s contiguous and zoned dense (and add the 0.3 back because you’re building over the fire station), so a $6.25-$6.5m giveaway. Free money! If someone gave me a $7 million land grant, yeah I’d build them a new fire station, too, and pocket the difference.
Based on the pictures I’ve seen of the fire station, it looks about the same shape as my high school from Central Massachusetts. What it needs most is a thorough cleanup and better space management.
@dulles– I’ll give you credit for establishing one incontrovertible fact… You’re not very good at “guesstimating.”
Your estimate of the triangle being the value equivalent of 8 house lots is absurd. You’re using raw square footage, and disregarding virtually every other factor that contributes to whether or not a lot is buildable. Zoning? Frontage? Shape? Slope? Additionally, the per lot price you’ve calculated, has no basis in reality. Of the nine residential properties listed in the assessor’s data base for Willow Street, only one would justify a lot price in excess of $250K. When you add all your out of context, nonsense together, you come up with a $7M value for the triangle, more than twice the current assessed value which INCLUDES the two existing City buildings.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but let’s get real. There is only one private property owner in the triangle, and they control the site. The City of Newton can spend umpteen millions of dollars building a new fire station, or we can get one for free through a public-private-partnership with that property owner.
@Mike — too bad I didn’t see this response until now.
If my example is so far off, why not show me an example of another contiguous 2.3-acre empty lot that recently sold in Newton Centre for a fraction of my guesstimate? Oh wait that’s right, there is no other 2.3-acre site available for development there.
Anyway, I don’t see you coming up with a number of what you believe the land to be worth if tendered to bid on the open market. $5 million? $4.5 million? If I’m off $1 million, does that somehow not make this a huge giveaway of public resources into private hands?
Dulles – please take a tour of the fire station and let us know what you think about it then. I was in it several years ago and the buildings’ problems were more serious than cleaning and maintenance.