Eight residents — yes that’s right EIGHT — have filed a lawsuit claiming the Newton Board of Aldermen’s approval of a $350 million development near the MBTA’s Riverside Station, saying they were not given a chance to raise their concerns during a “fatally flawed” public hearing process, Evan Allen of the Boston Globe reports.
“We had four full nights of public hearings that were very lengthy, in which everyone who attended was given an opportunity to speak on the petitions,” said [Land Use Committee Chairman] Hess-Mahan. “We also, throughout the process, invited and encouraged members of the public to submit their written comments so that the staff and the developers could address any questions they might have. I’m very confident that we provided the public an ample opportunity to participate.”
Boston Business Journal story here.
You know, I never understood Newton’s hostility to economic development. I recognize that Newton is a mature, densely settled, residential community. At the same time, we believe that there is room for high quality growth as well as growth that fits the village centers. Newton’s hostility to business explains why high quality employers either leave the city (such TripAdvisor, Eagle Investment Systems and EMC’s Corporate HQ), or don’t even bother operating in the city. That results in Newton having to make due with 40B Housing projects and ground floor retail chain stores.
It’s not the Newton Taxpayers Association that wants to put up 40B Housing projects on Wells Avenue. Setti Warren wants to sell Newton residents on 40B Housing projects. We want innovative industries that generate tax dollars at the higher commercial classified rate, require less city services than 40B Housing projects and which bring in good jobs at great salaries.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1528795642/Newton-mayoral-candidates-talk-housing
We are also intrigued by the idea of growth that fits the village centers. Alderman Jay Ciccone suggested it as did former mayoral candidate Bill Heck.
The Newton Taxpayers Association did not demand that Newton limit development to 2.5 stories without a special permit (5 stories since ~April 2013).
V14 blogger Wilbur Smith once suggested industrial manufacturing companies however I’m not sure that such a company could afford to operate in Newton due to the high cost of real estate. I would think that a manufacturer would want to operate in a community that is less densely settled and has cheaper real estate myself.
HC Stark is here, (these days they are refining tantalum) and although not as big as in days of yore they are an example of the small scale high precision manufacturing we should be encouraging.
Newton should also be making an effort to encourage B2B (Business to business) commercial zoning and flex industrial/lab space with good logistical access. Perhaps getting in touch with Biomed Realty Trust (which owns alot of lab space in Cambridge) about development opportunities.
My fear is that the current vision for newton’s grown is about more pedestrian oriented retail (e.g Frozen yogurt shops) rather than the more interesting retail/industrial found on Needham street (e.g national lumber, the various plumbing supply companies, the exercise equipment companies). Stuff that draws people from miles around.
I have no quarrel with H.C. Starck and other high precision manufacturing firms. In many cases, I would expect that when I refer to “innovative industries”, it would be implied that such companies would be included as an innovative industry especially since they have 140 people in R&D. That represents 5% of their workforce.
Though I am against any additional housing in Newton, Alderman Ted is correct. They had their chance.
For a city that “developers don’t like,” we seem to have a lot of development going on in Newton. And while this strategy of litigating until the bitter end does seem misused at Riverside, it may in time prove to be a useful approach in dealing with the proposed 40B development on Wells Ave. In my opinion, the City should be making it crystal clear to the Wells Ave developers that they’re in for a long, difficult, and expensive battle. The Wells Ave proposal is the most ill conceived project I can remember in this city. It will undoubtedly have a terrible effect on traffic, and could have a devastating impact on schools. The time to stop it is now!
I think the Austin Street project is proof positive that this city is not developer friendly. Even Boston doesn’t take so long and have such a secretative and confusing process.
I don’t know whether people were not allowed to speak during public meetings, as alleged in the Globe article, but I can’t think of a more vetted project than Riverside. The eight residents may have valid complaints about traffic and parking but conversations about what the developer wants to do with that site date back more than four years. Public comment could not possibly have been shut down for all those meetings.
Y’Know, its times like this I miss Anatol.
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2012/11/zukerman-if-it-werent-for-the-nimbys-we-wouldnt-need-any-overrides/#axzz2kRL29cmd
Newton hostile to development? I’ve experienced no shortage of cases where large-scale developers are hostile to the residents of Newton. Cases where developers go to a public review with their plan, and issue a threat: either let us build this plan or else we’ll 40B it, pave every last square inch of the property and squeeze in so many housing units your heads will spin.
Because all developers are scrupulous folk that’d never sell out a community to turn a buck, right?
If Newton had a better relationship with the developers, we’d have our choice of developments, rather than having to make due with 40B housing and ground floor retail outlets.
It’s not about the relationship the city has with developers. Although sometimes self preservation warrants hostility, as is the case on Wells Ave. But a developer will always measure any project by its profitability. There’s a lot of money to be made in Newton, thus a lot of development activity. We should as a matter of public policy, encourage the development that benefits the city, and discourage that which does not.
Of mutual benefit though, is Newton’s last development frontier, the air-rights over the Mass. Pike. The city would be well served to provide developers with a “road map” to exploit that tremendous asset.
Why does no one listen to Mike about the air rights over the Ma Pike? It could be the best solution in terms of traffic and money. I know nothing about commercial real estate but everything that Mike has posted about it just rings positive to me.
Kim, I think that people are putting the Mass Pike air rights on the pay-no-mind list because the CAG Report (3-26) concluded that it wasn’t feasible.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/26967
I don’t agree (or disagree) with the CAG Report’s conclusion on the project. I’m intrigued by Mike Striar’s proposal regarding the Mass Pike air rights and I’d like to see further specifics on any proposal myself.
I think Mike’s quote “We should as a matter of public policy, encourage the development that benefits the city, and discourage that which does not.” encapsulates how I look at economic growth and development personally, as well as on behalf of the Newton Taxpayers Association.
The CAG’s analysis was cursory at best. The feasibility is evident by the existence of the Gateway Center in Newton Corner and the Shaw’s Market in Newtonville. While the cost of air-rights development has changed, [specifically the cost of the platforms], allowing taller buildings in a special air-rights zone, would bring those costs back down to earth. This idea has not gained traction, because it’s fraught with controversy and political peril. It requires the City to initiate the process, but politicians see it as costing them votes.
.
Mike, you’ll get no argument from me about the cursory analysis that the CAG put up (except for Kevin Dutt and George Foord).
It is my profound regret that the Newton Taxpayers Association did not take a position on the CAG Report when my predecessor Al Cecchinelli ran the group. Fortunately, I hope to publish my analysis and evaluation of it on or before the 5th anniversary of the CAG Report’s publication.