The Board of Aldermen last night rejected the proposed one-year moratorium on the demolition of one- and two-family houses, according to a story by Jim Morrison on Wicked Local Newton.
And, according to some eyewitnesses on Twitter, things got intense:
Things getting heated between Ald Hess-Mahan and Ald Yates in BoA tonight.
— Chris Steele (@CSteele02468) November 18, 2014
Chris exaggerates.
But Barbara Brousal-Glaser did her first speaking on the floor and by tradition got a standing ovation from her fellow alderpeople (whether they agreed with her or not). That was nice.
http://www.tout.com/m/2bl0oq
Darn that NewTV. It’s all right there.
For those of us who would absolutely love/ to spend 300 minutes and 5 seconds to watch a video of the Newton Board of Alderman, but may not have the time to do so, does anyone know when the donnybrook breaks out?
The perils of manual html…meant to say:
For those of us who would absolutely love to spend 300 minutes and 5 seconds to watch a video of the Newton Board of Alderman, but may not have the time to do so, does anyone know when the donnybrook breaks out?
Michael, hate to disappoint you but there was nothing I would call a donnybrook. Yates and Hess-Mahan just seemed like a strong difference of opinion to me. Maybe it’s a female thing, but I was more struck by Lenny Gentile suggesting Amy Sangiolo should exercise “a little bit of self control” because she’d filed a number of late docket items, then Norton and Harney later defending her.
You can can read the Cliff Notes version of the night here (scroll down to where Nov 17 starts, then read up): https://twitter.com/newtonvillages
Michael – Sorry to say, but it wasn’t just one interchange. The THM/Yates thing got nasty, but there was a general level of dissension throughout the meeting. I only watch sections of BOA meetings where they address an issue of concern, so I tuned in to hear the Wells Ave. discussion and got caught up in the moratorium discussion (which I thought had been settled). I had also attended the BOA meeting about Zervas School. It appears that there is a significant division amongst aldermen, who then proclaim they have a love fest going on when they leave the meeting.
The good news is that the majority of the aldermen appear to want to do their job and have little need to slam one another or city employees. Good for them for sitting patiently and politely for over three hours, waiting to vote on two measures that were for all intents and purposes settled when they entered the chambers. That doesn’t mean a number of aldermen didn’t raise legitimate concerns about the moratorium and Wells Ave. and I completely respect that.
I have to say, Rick Lipof won the night.
My late friend and colleague, Alderman Anthony “Sal” Salvucci had a saying. There is a railing in the Chamber between the board members and the public called the “bar.” Sal always used to say that inside the bar, no one was his friend but outside the bar, everyone was his friend. What he meant by that was that we could all disagree, even vehemently, inside the bar, but that we put that all behind us once we went outside the bar. There is a protocol for disagreeing with your colleagues which Sal insisted upon, however, which is to refer to “my colleague from Ward 3” when disagreeing with another alderman’s position, rather than referring to him/her by name. As far as Sal was concerned, whatever you said about someone’s position (not about the person) was fair game, so long as you observed that simple display of courtesy and respect.
Sal and I frequently disagreed about controversial topics, and he would give as good as he got on the floor of the board. But outside the bar, we got along well, and had lunch together with a group of friends once a month for many years until his death this April. We never allowed our divisions on the floor of the board never got between us when we left the Chamber. He was a real mensch (although I think he would have preferred “mush”).
Sometimes Ald. Yates (or should I say my colleague from Ward 5?) and I disagree strongly about policy. Personally, I like Brian. He is smart, committed, passionate about his issues, and has a quirky sense of humor that I truly enjoy, even when, in fact, particularly when, he directs it at me. I think it is a virtue that we can get along despite our differences, not a shortcoming. And, in spite of the fact that we came out on different sides of the demolition moratorium issue, Ald. Sangiolo and I are working together on a Large House Review ordinance to address concerns about oversize houses that are built to replace tear downs.
I have always been passionate about causes and issues that are important to me, and I am not going to stop now. And I certainly don’t hold it against my colleagues who do the same, as long as it doesn’t get personal. It is the same in the legal profession, where lawyers on opposite sides of a case can be zealous advocates in court and then go out for a drink and have a laugh together afterwards. In fact, I have far more respect for colleagues who get all up in my grille than for someone who is polite to my face while stabbing me in the back.
What my esteemed colleague from Ward 3 said with one exception. I think the correct spelling of the term Alderman Salvucci would have preferred is “Moosh.”
I must respectfully disagree with my esteemed colleague from Ward 5. While there is no official spelling, and “moosh” is phonetically correct, the word for a “guy” in the Language of the Lake is commonly spelled “mush.”
Brian and Ted are both correct, I think. I have a friend who was born in the Lake and I have heard him called both “Mush” and “Moosh”. He seems to answer to both spellings and pronunciations. I know both Brian and Ted and I hardly think a small tempest like this could possibly impair the friendship or good humored exchanges they have with each other. Both have remarkably sharp senses of humor.
There is a snippet on You Tube that can be googled under profanity hurled by a Green Party member of the Irish Parliament at a political opponent. I was going to post it as a reference point to put the tiff between Brian and Ted into context and the general decorum that marks almost all meetings of the Board; A friend advised me not to post it because people might mistake it for Monday’s exchange in the Board of Aldermen. Also, it’s not the kind of language that I or other readers of this blog use.
Interestingly, Bob, “unparliamentary language” includes profanity, but the most egregious breach of protocol is to accuse another member of lying or being “dishonourable.” Occasionally, a member of the b0ard of aldermen will arise to invoke a “point of personal privilege” (pursuant to the Board’s Rules and Robert’s Rules of Order) to respond to an ad hominem or derisive remark. Only rarely has an aldermen ever used personal privilege to make one!
I could care less whether any of the Aldermen like one another or not or they slap one another on the back once they “cross the bar”. But I do expect them to exhibit a level of decorum at a public meeting, and that didn’t happen on Monday night. To dismiss public discourse by the Aldermen such as occurred on Monday night as a tiff is buying into the lack of civility that’s so prevalent at all levels of government.
The fact that two Aldermen are trying to turn it into a joke is all the more disturbing. A number of aldermen expressed too much anger at one another at this meeting, but at least they’re not trying to pretend it was all in good fun.
There’s been a significant increase in disrespectful public comment – even to constituents – on the part of elected officials of late.
Jane, do you work for Comcast? Because your comments are making me consider a cable TV subscription, just so I can watch this stuff go down as it happens!
They had a good show on Channel 2 the other night about some villagers in northern Bhutan who bought their first television, and their faces were filmed as they watched their first show – a WWF match. I can imagine the same thing happening as a Comcast guy hooks up a cable box in our house one Monday night and we turn it on to find – kazaam! – a BoA meeting on NewTV. Imagine the commotion!
And I’d also like to see that Lenny Gentile character actually admonishing someone. Based on his “Summahville?” video, that had to have been a hoot.
Michael – There’s no cable in this house and hasn’t been for years. You can watch SC and BOA meetings on your computer and listen to the discussion of issues you’re interested in and mute the rest. In truth, most BOA meetings are snoozers but in the last several months, a few aldermen have been getting testy with one another – as well as with constituents – during televised meetings. As I mentioned, the majority of them are very civil to one another and to constituents, but a few have crossed some boundaries lately. If they don’t get along or are angry with a constituent, I don’t really care but they should at the very least be able to make it through a televised meeting.
Sorry Jane. With everything going on in the World and our Nation, I don’t find time to get upset with something like this. Whenever possible, I’ll try to laugh at
things and take them in stride. Joanne already tells me I’m reading too much serious stuff about the environment and our dysfunctional political system. If I go over the bend, it won’t be because of anything that’s happening in Newton.
I’m not upset in the least, merely commenting that I think some of our Aldermen should conduct themselves in public with greater civility.
I am puzzled by statements made by some Aldermen at the last BOA meeting that this moratorium idea is paralyzing the Planning Dept: since the September 4 moratorium presentation, 26 full-demolition permits have been issued; above the year average!!
Isabelle,
Didn’t our esteemed Alderman from ward 3 say ( with great conviction )2 the other night that ISD was paralyzed in the issuance of building permits because of this Moritorium proposal?
This distinguished alderman from Ward 3, and a number of my colleagues, said that the planning department has been unable to move forward with the substantive zoning changes in Phase II of zoning reform because the reorganization and reformatting changes in Phase I have occupied the staff and the Zoning and Planning committee for the past two and a half years. The lack of progress on some of those substantive changes was part of the rationale that the proponents of the demolition moratorium relied upon to justify a demolition moratorium. The paralysis (or stenosis, take your pick) in the planning department is caused by 6 vacancies, the recent departure of the director of planning, and the glacial pace of Phase I of zoning reform.
I would love it if Newton Tab articles noted who voted for, against, who abstained, and who did not show up. Does anyone know the answer to this?
I have only been following this issue casually, but it seems like the right decision. I don’t like McMansions, but stable, predictable, and well enforced zoning is important.
to T H-M,
What was said: “As long as this docket item is out there, ISD is acting as though the moratorium is in effect and is not approving demolition permits.”
Misinformed Alderman?
Isabelle, to the best of my knowledge, that is true. The Historic Commission has been approving demolitions, but between the time the public hearing on the demolition moratorium was advertised and the board’s action becomes final, ISD is not issuing the actual demolition permits.
If the eGovPLUS Permits Database maintained online by ISD is to be believed, 19 full-house demolition permits were issued by ISD between October 2 and November 20.
Hardly ” is not been issuing demolition permits”!!
Ted HM,
With all due respect your support for NAN re Sangiolo’s proposed Moritorium, at recent Aldermanic hearings and your vociferous argument that a moritorium was defacto, already in effect, with NO demolition permits issued, was to say the least misleading ( if you took Mr Lojeks word on same ), or a direct lie ( if you personally invented this scenario ). 19 demolition permits were issued between oct 2nd and November 20th, during the heat of the Moritorium discussions, and it seems to me that you owe the citizenry of our fair city a retraction of your argument, and an apology to the Board of Aldermen for having mislead them on this point.
I confirmed with the Commissioner of ISD, John Lojek, that the policy was to allow owners who had already gone through the demolition review process with the Historic Commission prior to the advertisement of the public hearing on the demolition moratorium were grandfathered in and allowed to obtain a demolition permit.
I didn’t go through every demolition permit on the list, but one in particular jumped out at me: 88 Adena Road. This was a single family ranch house in West Newton that had been deteriorating for many years because the elderly owner was not able to maintain the house. The family that wanted to buy the house asked to be allowed to demolish the house so that they could build a new single family Dutch Colonial that was similar in size and scale to most of the other houses on the street. The owner, the entire neighborhood and the aldermen from the ward–Ald. Cote and myself–supported granting a demolition permit because the house was already partially demolished and was an eyesore.
On July 24, 2014–well before the public hearing for the demolition moratorium was advertised–the Historic Commission voted unanimously to allow the house to be demolished. The demolition permit was applied for on October 10, 2014 but not issued by ISD until November 20, 2014.
That same night, the Historic Commission allowed the demolition of 1657 Centre Street. A demolition permit was applied for and issued on October 15, 2014.
On August 28, 2014, the Historic Commission waived a demolition delay after approving the plans for a new house at 360 Langley Road. A demolition permit was applied for and issued on October 2, 2014.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
What am I missing here? The Historic Commission allowed for the demolition of two houses at a meeting in July, and both applied for demo permits in October. One of the houses had a permit issued the same day, the other had to wait 6 weeks. Why did one get one immediately and the other didn’t? The timing was the same.
Tricia, Ted,
The Historical Commission have had their meetings on their regular monthly schedule, allowing for and denying demolitions plus or minus application dates , waivers or delays.
In addition Katy Holmes and Dave Morton ( Chairman of the Commission ), acted on numerous demolition requests during the same time period granting demo permits that the NHC never had a chance to review, because those same properties were deemed ” Not Historic”. At no time during the Moritorium deliberations were any demolitions held up , deferred, or thought to be under any sort of defacto moratorium. Demolition permits were granted before, during and now after the moritorium proposal and the city is all the sadder for it.
PS,
Why ISD grants demo permits on what dates is the business of ISD. Once a property is found , by the NHC, to be not preferably preserved or a demolition delay is waived, or a demolition delay expires after one year, an owner or developer can apply for his demolition permit at his leisure . Some get it the next day some wait for some time ( perhaps after the new home is designed ). I think there is a 2 year period during which the demo approval must be acted on before expiration.
Blueprintbill, it is a little disingenuous to suggest the HC is allowing demolitions right and left. As a former member you know that. Go to the minutes for almost any meeting, and you will find the majority are either found preferably preserved or no vote is taken because the commission members want to see further revisions to the plans.
Unlike Belmont, where about 126 homes are designated as “historic” and entitled to protection from demolition, in Newton the threshold criteria is 50 years old. That includes literally thousands of homes, many of which are, indeed, most likely going to be found preferably preserved. For a total demolition, owners must wait at least four months to submit plans for a new house, and may have to come back one or more times to get a waiver of the demolition delay. and if the plans are not consistent with the historic context of the neighborhood, that demolition delay will not be waived. So, in many instances, the developer who buys a ranch house and applies for a demolition permit so that s/he can come back and build a McMansion is just going to wait 12-18 months and not waste time bringing in plans for review.
So, yeah, when developers buy houses as tear downs, which seems to be the motivating factor behind the moratorium, there is de facto delay of 12-18 months on demolition. (FYI, demolition of houses on the national register of historic places are delayed 18 months.) In fact, most developers I have spoken with simply factor that into their development costs. And with the current uptick in the housing market, the delay means they can charge more when they finish the project. So they are laughing all the way to the bank. Which is why I am pursuing the large house review with Ald. Sangiolo and others. I think it is the only effective way to curb the kind of development we don’t want.
Once again, not quite right, Alderman H-M! You say: “For a total demolition, owners must wait at least four months to submit plans for a new house”.
In fact, they don’t if the house is found ‘Not Preferably Preserved’. They can submit a demolition application the next day and file a building permit right after that.
The four months is the period of time after which a builder can come back in front of the NHC and ask for the demolition delay to be waived. The waiver will usually be approved if 1. the builder has plans that for a new house that fits the neighborhood in size and style and 2. the builder decided to keep the existing house and put in an addition.
All that being said, please continue your work on the Large House Review! I wanted it done yesterday :-)))))