Although I suspect only one of the authors may have read this book, Newtonville activists Marc Kaufman and Kathleen Kouril Grieser weighed in on Mayor Setti Warren’s selection of Austin Street Partners to develop the Austin Street parking lot in the week’s Newton TAB. One column, I’d describe as cautiously optimistic. The other sounds a warning to residents in another village. Both offer different historical perspectives and context. If you haven’t done so yet, read them both and then come back and discuss.
Two Newtonville activists air views on Austin Street
by Greg Reibman | May 30, 2014 | Austin Street | 14 comments
Greg,
Now which of the authors might not have read that antique tome, by Dale Carnegie. To start a thread with a slap in the face is really pretty inhospitable !
Why do you insist on otherwise coloring what might appear as a fair and balanced discussion unless you have a doubt as to the balance of the argument itself?
@Blueprint: I encourage Kouril Grieser and those of you who prefer this to keep lashing out at our elected officials, public servants and organizations such as the League of Women Voters.
Our aldermen don’t always agree with each other. But they generally treat each other — as well as the individuals who work in City Hall and our citizen activists who over many years have committed time and energy to multiple civic matters — with respect.
The more grenades you toss, the more you are going to alienate the 24 people you need most right now.
So keep at it!
Yes, the contrast is very clear. One read as an intemperate rant against the city administration, the aldermen and virtually anyone involved in the economic development of Newton. There may have been one or two salient points, but they were drowned under a flood of bile.
As the domain registrant of NewtonVillagesAlliance.org, Kathleen Grieser’s uncompromising stance is also reflected in that website. I can sympathize with some of the NVA’s concerns, but the complete anti-development viewpoint is a turn-off. Thus, every ‘teardown’ becomes a ‘McMansion’, cheaply built by profit-hungry developers, irrespective of the circumstances; affordable housing should be promoted by constraining redevelopment and driving down the value of property, while opposing 40B projects. Really!
Can someone pls clarify something… Ms Grieser’s letter suggests that “affordable” means reduced rent. She says 75% of units are “fully priced, not affordable” Aren’t all units priced at market and the state makes up for the subsidy for the select people that qualify? I think people are legitimately confused by the gov’t-speak “affordable” as being something other than subsidized units.
While I appreciate your attempt at humor, it seems that just posting the Tab links and asking for discussion would have been the better way to go. Perhaps winning friends is not the intent but, to the right audience, influencing people may have been accomplished. I think they both bring up interesting points. I’m counting on the Mayor’s quote in the Globe that only the developer has been selected and now negotiations begin on the rest of the development on Austin Street. I take the other post to be a call for transparency from the city and for becoming involved as a community at the beginning of a process rather than jumping in at the end, but that’s just me.
Greg,
With all due respect, if to question your objectivity, and fairness is to throw a ‘grenade,’
I suspect perhaps a nerve has been touched.
Alerting constituents to governmental issues is what will influence the 24 votes, and if THAT is ‘grenade tossing’ long live free speech.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear Blueprint. As Sean notes, I was referring to the grenade tossing here.
@Sean: I get it.
BPB,
I don’t agree with Kouril Grieser. At all. But, I respect her right to make her arguments.
That said, I share Greg’s concern with her rhetoric. Her letter tiptoes right up to the edge of ad hominem attacks. Aldercritters “quietly pushed” development. “Curiously” the League of Women Voters took a position to “take away our parking lot.” A collective group of proponents “attempted to reduce all of Newtonville’s objections to a simplistic untruth.” &c.
There isn’t a pure heart in the group.
When you impugn people’s motives, you coarsen the debate. It’s that simple.
Greg,
You don’t get it. There are folks who would be just fine with the existing lot. Just. As. It. Is.
Greg Reibman — Since there was a small grenade tossed your way, do you have any response about it? Is your support based on your affiliation with the Chamber, our your personal opinion on what’s good for Newton (or both)?
Kaufman says that an architects’ review of the proposals is available online. I couldn’t track it down. Anybody else find what I missed?
Link:http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/58298
That is the link to the architect’s review of the proposals, Sean. Sorry, posted it too fast.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/58298
I read both articles. I think the “anti” article was disappointing. Lots of incorrect statements and wide generalizations. Very unconvincing.
Hoss, you are thinking of section 8 housing. This is different. If it is rentals, the rental rate is reduced by the owner. If it is condos, then an affordable restriction is placed on the condo, so that if it is sold it is subject to affordable sales restrictions.
Hoss, there are a lot of misconceptions about the meaning of “affordable” housing. To qualify as “affordable” under HUD regulations, housing must be affordable to low to moderate income households. Low to moderate income households earn less than 80% of the area median income. Affordable rents may not exceed 30% of what a low to moderate income household earns.
Only units listed in Newton’s subsidized housing inventory (SHI) count towards Chapter 40B’s 10% affordable housing goal. In order to be included on the SHI, they must meet
the following requirements:
• Units must be part of a “subsidized” development built or operated by a public agency, non-profit, or limited dividend organization;
• The development must be subsidized under a state, federal, or local subsidy program.
• In a homeownership development, those units which are deed-restricted to sale to moderate-income households (less than 80% AMI) can be included on the SHI. Sales prices must be restricted to affordable levels. In rental housing, all units included in the subsidized housing development, including those rented at Fair Market Rents, can be included in the SHI.
• The development must be subject to a regulatory agreement and monitored by a public agency or non-profit organization; and
• Developers must meet fair and affirmative marketing requirements, as defined in the state’s Comprehensive Permit Guidelines.
“Subsidized” includes either funding or technical assistance from a “subsidizing agency.” Unless they are funded by CDBG and/or CPA funding (e.g., Parkview Homes in Auburndale, CAN-DO projects, etc.), most of the 40B developments done by developers in Newton rely on technical assistance rather than funding from a subsidizing agency.