Here’s the text of Newton Mayor Setti Warren’s FY16 budget address as presented to to the aldermen on April 21
When I delivered our State of the City last month I mentioned that we have to think big, not just about making the right decisions for today’s citizens, but for those that come after us, 20 to 30 years from now. To do this we must ensure our finances, infrastructure, environment, education and public safety meet the needs of our residents now and in the future. We also can’t be afraid to make tough decisions to move our City forward. We owe it to those who came before us who did the same. We know the demographics of our city will continue to evolve now and in the future. More families with children want to move to Newton to take advantage of our excellent education system and the growing senior population would like to stay in our city because of our great quality of life.
This year’s FY16 budget represents the tremendous progress we have made in the last five years as well as the great course we have set for the next 20 to 30 years.
The long-term capital needs of our education system and the need for community space have been a priority for our administration as outlined in our capital plan. We have made fantastic strides in addressing the needs of our students in the next five years with major elementary school projects that are on time and on budget. These include the Carr School, which is now fully renovated and operates as swing space; the Angier School, which opens at the beginning of 2016; the Zervas School, slated to open in the fall of 2017 and Cabot, scheduled to be completed and open in the winter of 2019. We know that in the next five years we need to address the needs of our growing preschool program, renovate the Lincoln Eliot School and establish a space for a community center for all ages.
In recent weeks the owners of the Aquinas property in Newton made it clear to the City that the land on Jackson Road was back on the market and available for sale. As a result, tonight, we are announcing our intent to purchase that property. Our administration is pleased to share that we have reached an agreement to purchase the property for $15,750,000, contingent upon affirmative vote of the School Committee and two thirds of the members of the Honorable Board of Aldermen.
This acquisition will enable our city to consolidate our growing preschool program into one site at Aquinas and provide a renovated, new site for the Lincoln Eliot School at Aquinas. The current Lincoln Eliot School would become swing space after completion of the Cabot School in 2019 as we continue work renovating our schools over the next twenty years. This move will allow us to move the Horace Mann School into the newly renovated Carr School and use the current Horace Mann for a needed space for programming for our youth and intergenerational community center and space for Parks and Recreation year-round activities and programming. It would also allow us to accelerate the capital program for the schools and City at a lower cost.
We will be docketing a detailed signed letter of intent to purchase the Aquinas property for School Committee and Board of Alderman approval in the coming weeks. This is a very exciting opportunity that has presented itself to the Administration within the past few weeks, one that is cost effective and efficient. If approved by both bodies, we believe this will dramatically alter our opportunity to address the needs of preschoolers, students, educators and parents in Newton for the next 20 to 30 years.
Through collaboration with the Chairman of the Aldermanic Finance Committee, the Comptroller, members of the Board of Aldermen and the Administration, the rainy day fund, which did not exist in 2010, has reached its goal of 5% of the total operating budget for FY 2015. The current fund balance is over $17 million dollars. The City intends to continue to contribute to the fund each fiscal year to maintain the target goal of 5% of the annual operating budget.
Although the City had been willing to extend plans to fully fund its Retirement Fund to 2038, when leaders were dealing with the financial crisis of the structural deficit, financial sustainability required more. Therefore, the City of Newton Contributory Retirement Board, with full support from the Administration, voted to implement a funding schedule which will fully fund the Newton Retirement Fund by the year 2029, shaving 9 years off the prior plan. The FY 2016 Budget includes an annual increase of 8.5% in support of this decision.
When we first took office, the City established an Other Post-Employment Benefits (O.P.E.B.) Liability Trust Fund and then established an OPEB Trust Agreement for the purpose of providing an irrevocable, dedicated trust fund as a vehicle to make advance contributions for OPEB benefits. We developed a plan where we would set aside a certain percentage of the salaries of all newly insured employees, a plan that would grow exponentially. What started with a meager appropriation of $137,000 in FY2011 has now grown to a $1.4 million appropriation in the FY2016 Budget. For the next 15 years the City will continue to increase the percentage of funds set aside and the number of employees involved, and will continue the policy of “pay as you go” for employees and retirees hired prior to July 1, 2012.
However, all of this will change in the year 2029. With the projected full-funding of the Pension Plan, the City will then be able to focus on repurposing pension liability appropriations to the O.P.E.B. Trust Fund, creating a viable, sustainable financial model by which to fully fund our OPEB Costs.
In January of 2015, the City of Newton once again earned a “Aaa – Stable” rating, the highest possible, from Moody’s Investor Services. Particularly noted in the rating was the City’s strong fiscal management.
As we have stated, part of our zero-based and outcome-based approach to the fiscal management of this City, has been to question every expenditure to determine whether or not we can find a more cost effective way to accomplish the same outcome. Prior to our taking office, the City had never “refinanced” any of its bonds. Two years ago there were certain bonds that made sense to “refinance” and consequently we saved the City more than $400,000 in interest payments over the remaining life of those loans. This year I am pleased to announce that we had a very successful “refinancing” of $20 million of bonds that had been sold in 2006 and 2007. This means that we will save more than $2 million in interest payments over the next 11 years as a result of this action.
Our administration has continued to be committed to a cleaner environment as well as saving taxpayer money.
Since 2010, we have added 820 Kilowatts of power thanks to solar panels on school and municipal buildings throughout the City. The projects in energy efficiency and solar energy were implemented in FY 2014 and 2015, and will save the City over $600,000 in FY 2016 and over $12 million over the course of the next 20 years.
Currently, the City is involved in plans for Phase 2 of these projects that will more than double these savings. The City of Newton has also received $800,000 in energy rebates from Eversource (NSTAR) and National Grid for energy efficiency projects implemented in 2014.
Increasing the commercial tax base and economic vitality are critical for Newton’s future. The Chestnut Hill Square project, now complete, generates more than $1 million annually in additional property tax revenues to the City. The Administration continues to work closely with the Honorable Board of Aldermen to facilitate the successful completion of several other development opportunities including the Atrium Center, Riverside and the Needham Street Corridor. Additional economic development initiatives that will be active in FY16 focus on two major regional partnerships we have built – the N2 Corridor with the Town of Needham, which includes both Needham St. and Wells Avenue, and the Charles River Mill District with Watertown and Waltham, which includes the Chapel Street business district. We believe that the innovation sector and entrepreneurship are major growth industries for the future. In addition to attracting and retaining these businesses, we will also focus on transportation improvements supporting both areas as innovation corridors.
We know unparalleled public safety is incredibly important in making Newton what it is today. We are pleased to report that the Fire Station 10 renovation project will be complete July of 2015 and the Fire Station 3 project is on time and on budget with a projected completion date of spring 2019. And, in this year’s budget, we add two police officers to meet our multi-year staffing requirements to keep our streets and villages safe.
Reducing traffic congestion is important in improving the quality of life in Newton. This summer we will start work on upgrading 17 traffic signals with smart technology to alleviate traffic in all parts of the city. We will complete 8 intersections during FY16 in strategically identified locations in Newton.
We know we must continue to repair streets and sidewalks after many years of neglect. We have paved 50% more roadway each year than we had when I took office in 2010, and repaired 131% more sidewalks. We will meet the same commitment in this year’s FY16 budget.
Through the work of our aggressive Inflow and Infiltration program, the City has already saved $1.5 million in MWRA sewer charges. In the next fiscal year alone, we will see an additional $2 million in savings. We will continue to aggressively pursue this program and find savings for the City.
Since 2010, our administration has implemented a zero-based approach to budgeting and has adopted outcome-based budgeting for all city departments. As a result we have saved millions of taxpayer dollars and have achieved great outcomes for our residents in the last 5 years.
This year, the City has taken the next step in data-driven decision making, with the launch of the new DataStat Newton program. This program will track on a monthly basis everything from recycling rate and number of potholes filled, to auto-pedestrian accidents and changes in our commercial tax base. On a monthly basis, our administration will meet collectively with all City Department Heads to review the data and use the information to inform decision making on each of our budget outcomes. These items and hundreds of other metrics will be tracked regularly and posted on the City’s website. In addition to increasing transparency, this new program helps ensure that the City is addressing the needs of the community and identifying problem areas as quickly as possible. DataStat Newton is currently available on our city’s website, www.newtonma.gov.
Finally, as I said earlier this year, Newton must continue to promote the innovation economy that encourages economic growth and will increase our commercial tax base. This is our vision for Newton, but to achieve any of this will require proactive planning. We need more diverse housing options in Newton. We have set a goal to achieve at least 10% affordable housing by 2021.
We know that in order for Newton to continue to be successful it needs to be a place where our increasing senior population can not only age in place but continue providing meaningful contributions to our community. Newton needs to be a place where my children and yours can afford to settle if they wish. Newton has to be a place that welcomes diversity and a place where those who work here — our teachers, our firefighters, police officers and municipal workers can also live and raise their families. Newton must provide our most vulnerable residents (and others to come in the future) with the support and programming that will allow them to get an education, find a job and achieve financial sustainability. Newton has to continue to create a pathway to the middle class and beyond for all of our citizens.
In order to make this happen, next month we look forward to filing a project proposal for the Austin Street development. In addition, in the coming weeks we will file four specific policy proposals for discussion with the Honorable Board and our citizens, to accomplish the following; grow opportunities for our city employees to attain affordable housing in our city; consider ordinance changes to allow accessory apartments geared toward seniors; increase the inclusionary housing requirement to 20% and expand it in order to increase Newton’s middle class and lastly adopt 40R, a state program that allows by-right development with affordable housing in City specified areas under requirements adopted by the Board of Alderman and with payments from the state to offset development costs and support Newton schools. Together these actions, and others we will be introducing over the next year, are aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing for young families and people of all backgrounds as well as the economic vitality in our villages.
We look forward to working with each and every village of this city to bring people together to meet Newton’s full potential.
Thank you and God bless our city and the United States of America.
Tonight was pretty interesting and newsworthy (and for some I suspect, controversial). I encourage folks to read the whole thing but I think this paragraph towards the very end will be particularly discussion-worthy..
That’s the first I’ve heard of 40R. Very interesting indeed.
Where does the Mayor stand on the St Philip Neri development proposal? Shouldn’t he be out front on this if he wants more housing?
I’m dumb founded.
We moved to Newton to get out of high density living.
We paid a premium to do this.
We wanted to distance our kids from the dangers of frequently speeding cars.
I live in the “village” of Newton Centre, and I’m angry.
When the Mayor talks about 40R does he represent his own interests or the people who elected him?
At any point did he campaign around these issues?
I say let the people speak – allow for areas under consideration to have a referendum.
The Mayor has done a very good job with this. There has been so much negative energy put into the atmosphere around ‘development’ and ‘density’ and ’40B’ that reasonable discussion, and more importantly, creative ideas and innovative solutions have been suffocated. A small investment in really reading and understanding some of the work being done in Boston’s academic community (http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/) such as the Housing Scorecard report, will perhaps open some minds about positive possibilities through programs such as 40R and 40S.
@simon – wow, your post made me really sad, I am sorry to hear that you are angry. Here in Newton we try hard to make sure everyone is happy, and glad, and smiling as they walk or drive down our streets. We have lots of schools, and playgrounds, and stores, and Cabot’s Ice Cream to make sure everyone can have some fun. I would like to understand exactly what is making you upset. You say you moved to Newton ‘to get out of high density living.’ You will have to be a little more specific, since the term ‘density’ seems to be causing a lot of confusion in Newton lately. If I remember from high school physics, the basic definition is volumetric mass density, or mass per unit volume. That’s probably not what you are concerned about. Maybe you are worried about ‘population density,’ which I think would mean how many people live in a given land area. Newton is large in land area (over 18 square miles) and in total population (approximately 85k) compared to other municipalities in the Commonwealth, and net, its population density is toward the top of the list. However some folks in Newton seem to think it is running out of control, when in fact only a few years ago, our population was even higher, as much as 100k. So it’s hard to understand what could be troubling folks about ‘density’ when it has been much higher in the past. Another metric for ‘density’ has to do with housing configurations, meaning how many people live in a dwelling on a given size parcel of land. A three story single family home, for example, with total floor area of 2000 square feet and 10 rooms, has a lower ‘density’ than a three story apartment building or college dormitory having mostly studio or one bedroom arpartments. But for the most part the overall mix and housing density of a community, especially one as large as Newton, is not going to change radically over short periods of time. What exactly about ‘density’ did you not know relative to Newton, such that you are now ‘angry’? Similarly, if you moved to Newton because you ‘wanted to distance our kids from speeding cars,’ I’m conerned that you may not have spent enough time just driving around Newton, or perhaps your Real Estate Agent was driving you through Weston when you thought it was Newton. I have only to walk to the end of my street and stand on the corner to witness the excessive vehicular traffic we all have to endure. If anything, Chapter 40R (which you chose to mention in your post) tries to encourage transit oriented development, I think, so it may be a potential solution, and I’m not sure why you make it an object of your anger. Reducing traffic ultimately means encouraging folks to either use their autos less, or get rid of them altogether. Well, I hope you feel less angry soon, and perhaps you will decide that Newton is not so bad after all.
Like Simon , I am also density averse . And as H L Dewey continues to argue Simons point ( from every ridiculous direction ) I can’t help but think that there is a certain intellectual density ( or agenda ) , at work here as well.
Keep adding housing units , and more people will come, more cars will be added to our already over stressed roadways, more trees will be lost and green space paved over to accommodate them, more children will be added to our already over crowded and expanding schools, and more of the amenity that we came to Newton to enjoy will be compromised and lost. Density ( both physical and intellectual ) is the Problem.
I’d like to hear about what makes 40R different from 40B (am assuming that was what Jerry meant as well?)
As for density- we are a pop. 90k “suburb” connected to Boston. This is not a rural cowpatch. Being where we are, the way the city has been built, the size of things, and the existing roads and infrastructure bring with it a certain density that you would not get, say, in Bolton (where you would also pay a premium to live- but that’s more a random example than anything else).
That said, our vigilance (and that of our Aldermen) to examine every housing proposal and keep our voices heard in terms of how these would affect the surrounding communities and Newton as a whole is prudent, no matter which side of the issue you see it from.
I was also interested to hear about investments in (and tax income from) innovation districts. I like to see that commitment, as Boston and environs continues to be an underrated innovation center, and expanding on the exciting new young companies already here would be something I welcome (as would the Treasurer I suspect). I’m hoping we hear more about that and less about disappointments like MassChallenge being unsuccessful in trying to move into the Newton Centre Library (tho I understand that was more about the condition of the facility).
There’s a lot to embrace here, a lot to understand further, and more still to make sure we watch as they develop.
Last, I may not like or even understand every opinion or point of view I see expressed on these issues, but I am glad we are making them – and I see some new names in this thread, yes? – and hope we continue to (amicably) disagree where it’s needed.
@HL Dewey. Yes, there have been times when more people were living in Newton than live here now, but these were during times when there were far fewer cars and other accoutrements of modern life that take up more space and contribute to more congestion. Families also had more kids than they do now, but the cost of providing all of them a good education was far far less complex and expensive than it is now. Newton was also far less noisy, but that’s another issue. Planning and allocating resources was far easier to manage than it is now and there was much more open space that has been lost in the interim.
I agree with Simon. Newton is already one of the most densely populated cities in Massachusetts, and we don’t need 40R to bring forth more density.
Newton residents are committed to affordable housing development, but lets keep in mind we live in a city, not a petri dish for UN Agenda 21 social engineering.
Bob Burke, very well said. HL Dewey will not understand you because HL just looks at data, not the application of data to reality. HL apparently did not live in Newton when it last had a population of 90K+; living factors were very different then as you so noted.
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about development “density”, but please, please, stop assuming there is a direct relationship between modest population growth and the horrendous increase in traffic. Transportation-oriented development aside… Building even the occasional monster 40B isn’t the cause of our woes. It’s foolish to think that a freeze in development would halt traffic growth. It’s not like Newton residents are the only ones driving on our streets. There are many other factors at work, including clogged arterial roads and commuting patterns through and around Newton. Look at traffic growth on 9 or 128 or the Pike over the past decade or two — can’t blame that on Newton 40Bs, yet it certainly has much more impact on our local streets. Or look at the number of parents looping around the city and waiting in line to drop their precious children off at the front door of their school when many of them could be walking some or all of the way or taking a bus. Studies show that school-bound traffic is responsible for as much as 25% of traffic in the morning commute.
@HL Dewey is right about Newton real estate, though, at least for the four decades I’ve lived here, Newton has had more than its share of speeding drivers, except maybe during Sunday open houses.
You’ve got it right regarding traffic, Adam.
Traffic here has nothing to do with population growth, more likely economic growth.
The number of registered cars has doubled since the 1970’s; despite a stable (slightly smaller) population. The number of cars has gone up over 20% in the last decade alone.
One hope for the future is that those under 30 are not owning cars at the same rate as the baby boomer generation did. Maybe our car culture is running out of gas.
@ Terry Malloy,
So traffic has nothing to do with population growth . And our hope for the future is that younger people will not be traveling by car. Yes and Newton will add 10,000 people in the next decade and our traffic problems will not exist because our current mayor is going to fix up 17 sets of traffic lights, and most under 30 will take to walking and riding bicycles.
What planet are you guys living on?
That’s what the transportation sites were saying… until yesterday
Aquinas is going to be a huge positive for the city and whomever was involved between the Mayor and the Councilors in bringing this to reality deserve a lot of credit for their efforts.
Unless I missed it, I was kind of shocked that the Mayor didn’t update people as to where the city is in negotiating with the unions. I’d also like to hear what kind of progress the city is making in filling up all the employees spots that are vacant (again, I may have missed it….but I didn’t hear it in his speech).
Blueprintbill,
I said that ONE hope for the future… (which may not even be a glimmer according to Adam’s post). I DIDN’T say anything about solving traffic density. So, What planet do YOU live on?
@Blueprintbill
Where did that estimate come from?
FYI, the mayor ends with “and lastly adopt 40R,” which is a Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District.
This is a quick overview with case studies.
http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-40R.html
These are the rules, standards and procedures.
http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/cd/ch40r/760-cmr-59.pdf
The article Adam linked is worth reading. The stats about new car purchases particularly are interesting. A thought to add, only new car purchases are tracked while the millennials I know have learned from us boomers, who learned over time, that new cars are loosing $5000 or more in value while being driven off the lot and are purchasing “gently used cars” instead.
I agree with Simon. I saw a post on another blog that said – if I remember correctly – that Newton has added 300 people per square mile. Of course that adds up to more traffic congestion. I used to be able to drive from one end of the city to the other easily, now there are “traffic jams” all over the place – Parker Street, Centre Street, Beacon Street. I bought my house to live in a suburban environment close to the city. Now I feel like Newton is too much like the city. Townhouses and developments are being built in every nook and cranny of Newton.
Lassy, correlation does not imply causation, even if you say “of course”. What makes you think 300 (times 18 or some other multiple) is a significant number for traffic? Have you looked at the numbers?
We don’t live in a bubble, folks. Newton residents are not the only people using Newton roads. We’re part of the spokes that make up The Hub.
Adam,
You’re argument is illogical. Logically speaking the more Newton residence increase the more vehicles increase. If vehicles increase, then local and long distance driving increase. Even if the vehicles lead to just long distance driving, all those cars still have to drive in and out of Newton just to get to their destination. Traffic must increase. The only way that traffic wouldn’t increase is if only runners/bicyclists/public transport passengers come into Newton and the likelihood of all the increased population does that is nil.
While I agree with you that people from other cities use our streets (just like we use theirs) traffic does increase by bringing people in.
Tom, while it is undoubtedly true that more people means more cars, I believe the argument is that economic development, rather than population increase, has been the main driver for traffic growth.
Robert,
What is the definition of economic development? More commercial revenue (business’s) or more residential revenue (density)?
Either option increases traffic. (Maybe thats too simplistic).
Tom, is it possible that if we hadn’t developed a single unit of housing in the last decade and the population (and number of drivers) remained absolutely flat that we would have seen the same growth in traffic? We’ll never really know, but I believe the answer is yes. In other words, it could be explained by regional economic and population growth, putting non-symmetrical pressures on Newton (outer suburbs commute through Newton more than the other way around!) Highways passing through Newton hit capacity and where does the traffic all go? Does it really matter that we added hundreds of drivers in Newton? If we could make those drivers disappear overnight, would our problems go away, or would more commuters appear to fill the void (induced demand)
If one was to read Newton’s financial statements available at the Newton Comptroller’s Website, one could tell that Newton is in a weaker financial position under Setti Warren than when it was under David Cohen, which is saying something because Cohen was the man most responsible for Newton’s structural spending problem and its Billion Dollar Borrowing Binge.
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/comptroller/default.asp
Newton’s annual spending is over $70 Million more in 2016 than it was in David Cohen’s last year and this spending growth has primarily gone to fund lavish compensation packages for the unions and bureaucrats.
Newton’s unfunded pension liability is $63 Million more now than it was in David Cohen’s last year
Newton’s unfunded OPEB liability is $23 Million more now than it was in David Cohen’s last year
Newton’s outstanding debt has increased by $31 Million since Mayor Warren took office
Newton incurred $9 Million in operating fund deficits in Mayor Warren’s first term, and is projected to accumulate another $28.5 Million from FY 2015 to 2020.
Although Mayor Warren may have inherited Newton’s structural spending problem and its billion dollar borrowing binge, there is no question he has exacerbated it.
“Economic development, rather than population increase.” I think they’re interrelated to a degree. More businesses, more people working in them. Like Tom, I’m also wondering how you’d quantify “economic development”? Something like GDP, but for Massachusetts? A portion of that is likely knowledge/Internet based, people telecommuting, or working from home offices, or buying and selling online, which should not increase vehicle traffic as much.
I think a large part of the reason we have more traffic is that families own more cars. Teenagers have their own cars and drive to school. With more cars people don’t have to plan their trips as much. I happened to hear a Special Permit discussion recently where the applicant wanted to build a detached two-car garage in addition to three parking bays they already had in the main house!
I can’t remember exactly how I got to three years of then-Newton High School in the early ’70s from Waltham Street, but I think it was mostly on my 3-speed bike (which is still my bike). Sometimes I got a ride to school with the girl around the corner; not sure how I got home then. But I never had my own car, and I don’t remember student parking being an issue. But maybe someone else from that era has better recall.
We collectively seem to leave a bigger footprint, literally and figuratively, than in decades past. We seem to need much bigger houses to raise smaller number of kids. We have more “stuff” and need a place to put it. Houses have exercise rooms and entertainment centers, and walk-in closets for our larger collections of clothes, and fewer kids are sharing bedrooms with each other, or bathrooms with their parents. As the houses get bigger, backyards get smaller, so instead of playing kickball in the backyard, kids may get driven to organized sports or play dates. I must sound very ancient, but we didn’t have ‘play dates’ in the ’60s. We just played.
I think it’s common sense that if you have more people who live in a place then you have more cars in that place. That’s more people driving through our city every morning to get to work and coming home from work, more people going to the pharmacy, banks, doing their local errands etc. More people driving within Newton for things such as play dates, the gym, kids’ sports and practices at their school etc.
Adam has in very interesting point that seems to be missed. I drive from Newton to Marlboro each morning and have for the past 8 years. The eastbound traffic has steadily increased as the economy has recovered with longer lines of cars waiting to get through Framingham, Natick and Wellesley on their way to Boston. I live on the western side of Newton so miss most of the traffic through Newton.This increase in traffic, through Newton, does affect us in Newton and is completely independant from any traffic increase due to Newton development. Perhaps the solution is to restrict development in Boston so more economic development occurs closer to where people live. Maybe that April 1 post on Needham cutting off access to Newton roads is what we need 🙂
Tom and Julia,
By ‘economic development’ I mean that which enables families to have more cars: a general increase in incomes relative to the cost of buying and owning vehicles. Part of this is driven (forgive the pun) by more families with two or more adults holding jobs, and therefore driving to work.
Adam mentioned that more parents are dropping their children off at school, rather than having them take the bus. May I suggest that this is partly due to the high cost of school bus passes, and the crazy arrangements that require kids to cross town to get to their middle and high schools (and in the case of Upper Falls, to get to their elementary schools). Added to this is a general lack of north-south public transportation and safe cycling routes. Why, for example, are there no buses that run along Needham Street to the N2 corridor? How is one supposed to get from West Newton to Needham Street? The routes 52 and 59 buses just don’t cut it.
Nor are there any good alternatives to using private vehicles along the Route 128 corridor, because historically most of our public transportation options have been devoted to getting people in and out of Boston. Over the last 20 years, for only one year have I been able to use public transport to get to work.
While it is quite true that adding more people to the population of Newton will in of itself increase traffic, I submit that it isn’t the main factor driving traffic growth. Now, how to mitigate that is another question that is worthy of its own thread.
The introduction of 40R (and as it relates to smart growth) in Mayor Warren’s budget address will generate much discussion. In that regard, while this article “Urban Sprawl, Smart Growth, and Deliberative Democracy” is a bit outdated (2010) one thing I do appreciate about it: potential benefits of bringing all stakeholders to the table to contemplate policies.
“Smart growth has generated considerable controversy because stakeholders affected by urban planning policies have conflicting interests and divergent moral and political viewpoints. In some of these situations, deliberative democracy—an approach to resolving controversial public-policy questions that emphasizes open, deliberative debate among the affected parties as an alternative to voting—[c]ould be a fair and effective way to resolve urban-planning issues.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936977/
I’ve added “could” rather than “would” because two considerations are how to ensure all parties are represented and whether the deliberations would be binding. Nevertheless, open discussion on policies that shape our city is worth pursuing.
Adam and Robert (and Groot), everything you have said today is true. In the past, the people that take your position have basically implied that the increase of population has nothing to do with traffic increase. I believe we can stipulate that there is a partial increase in traffic, how much probably can’t be measured. That being said, I of course agree on everything else, including the drivers that come into Newton and change their route because they’re looking for alternative ways to work, etc.
So, how do we prevent this? Promote better bicycling and public transportation and carpooling, etc. Educate kids from the high school on up, etc.
Or Else, we can take up Sean Roche’s old comment and put a toll booth around every street that enters/exits Newton. But then we’d have to fight over how much the toll would be, we’d have to gather a committee on the subject, have the Board vote on it and maybe in the year 2020 have a toll. (for those who don’t get sarcasm, lol).
Of course, everyone looking for a better route through Newton means we who live here find new less traveled routes for getting around Newton on “back roads” increasing traffic in neighborhoods.
Tom,
While I agree that an increase in population necessarily results in an increase in traffic, curtailing development is not going to do much to mitigate it.
The problem is a regional one and will require communities to cooperate with each other. I am pessimistic that our existing supra-regional transit authority, the MBTA, is going to be a meaningful part of the solution, since it has plenty on its plate already. Perhaps public-private partnerships with companies like Bridj might play a role?
The article Lynne LeBlanc links advocates deliberative democracy to make decisions concerning development, as she said. This approach is being used successfully in many locations (such as Bristol Rises in Bristol, CT, parts of NYC and others highlighted in weburbanist using various methods of crowd sourcing to guide development.) The first hurdle is political legitimacy, meaning the stakeholders (citizens, business owners, administration, etc.) would attend town meetings, debates, etc. and their ideas would have legitimacy.
At this point in Newton, when public stakeholders attend meetings, their ideas, even when requested, hold no legitimacy at all. So when the mayor says “we” will be adopting 40R, I don’t anticipate public debate will matter anymore than it did in the first step in smart growth at the Austin Street parking lot. It’s beside the point that many of the tenets of so-called smart growth, such as first having a plan for the town that specifically defines the vision, then implementing it with updating infrastructure and public transportation before adding mixed use developments that adhere to that plan, have been ignored.
Robert,
I’m not talking about the T, when I mentioned public transportation I was referring to local bus. I don’t think we even have a bus that goes to the hospital from all the villages. We can do better.
People may be cutting through Newton, and even if every Newton resident did absolutely nothing in Newton itself (never went to a Newton bank, restaurant, dry cleaner, coffee shop, hair salon, school, movie theater etc) they would still have to leave their Newton home to drive through Newton to go elsewhere. I don’t see how anybody can say that all of these new apartments and townhouses that are adding new residents to Newton are not contributing to more traffic.
@H L Dewey,
Firstly thank you for your concern – and my apologies for not responding earlier.
I can’t help but believe we are being misled.
This is all about affordable housing, and some of our elected officials like to talk about helping out our Teachers, Police Officers and Firefighters.
Lets look at Austin Street. 80 units, 25% affordable. So thats 20 units, and I believe its approximately 70% (but not sure) of those units can be ear marked for local preference. So now we are down to 14 units for our locals. If I am thus far correct then a lottery is performed, so what is it likelihood of assisting our Teachers etc without discriminating?
Then lets look at 40R. You mentioned that these are geared towards mass transit locations. The only real mass transit option is the T – and that will primarily assist people commuting towards Boston, and so transit option isn’t really going to help our teachers etc get to work. What it is likely to do is add to our traffic woes. It doesn’t take too much of a stretch of the imagination to envisage Garages being torn down and replaced with accessory apartments. Those apartments will almost certainly add cars. And given that some of these properties will have lost a garage maybe they will not have the space to house that additional car, so that car potentially ends up on the street.
Then we have our aging population and the desire to “Age in Place.” This is defined as a person living in the residence of their choice. We hear “smart” a lot, what is so smart about a couple of people banging around in 2000+sq ft household? Is it smart to have a house underutilized? Is it efficient? I was dismayed to find our local officials writing off Ranches as a by gone era, and happy to replace with McMansions. Surely these properties are far more desirable for aging in place – with the cities unwillingness to prevent the destruction of this kind of property very few of these remain.
And finally, back to mass transit. In all likelihood if we are to get mass transit working effectively in Newton then we are going to have to “massively” increase our population. That then breaks our infrastructure and in particular our school systems – which is a huge contributing factor to Newtons desirability.
Simon
@Simon – thanks so much for your very thoughtful and good-natured response. I totally apologize for being such a snarky smart aleck in my post. Just my feeble and probably misguided attempt to try and inject some humor where folks are so often angry and upset. You clearly take these issues seriously and I applaud that. Your response covers a lot of very important points which I probably can’t do justice to in a typical blog posting, but I will say that you have hit a lot of the major questions. One thing I will say is that I have found it invaluable to try and keep up with the work of the Boston Foundation and Prof Bluestone at Northeastern in trying to understand the core issues, as well as stay informed about what is really happening, not just in Newton, but the greater Boston area in which we are embedded. Most recently, the latest Housing Report Card
http://www.tbf.org/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/2014%20-%202015%20Housing_Report.pdf
is to my mind indispensable in trying to sort out these complicated questions. It provides both policy analysis and the most current data on demographics, housing stock, and other critical questions. If you have not had a chance to look at it, I highly recommend it. In the same vein, the City of Newton commissioned Prof Bluestone to study our city specifically, and the report has been available for some time
http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/exec/BluestoneDemographicsFinal.pdf
on the city web site. I have a hard time figuring out why anyone who is trying to understand what is happening in Newton does not make it a point to go through the report. Perhaps trying to discuss ‘affordable housing’ or ‘smart growth’ or ‘transit oriented development’ is like shouting ‘climate change’ in a crowded theater (to abuse Justice Brandeis’ words) but if we can’t talk about it intelligently we won’t get very far. So, thanks again for your thoughts.
Oops, my bad – Oliver Wendell Holmes not Louis.
Simon, teachers, fire firefighters and police officers will most likely not qualify for the affordable units in Newton, Austin Street or afford most of the market rate units.
@Joshua Norman
Please provide proof of othewise! LOL!
Janet, where do I begin in order to reinforce my thesis that Mayor Warren and his fellow left-wing Democrats are turning Newton into a petri dish for UN Agenda 21 social engineering?
Should I talk about how that plagiarist David Fleishman introduced Commie Core into the Newton Public Schools system? Commie Core is straight out Chapter 36 of Agenda 21.
Should I talk about how Alison Leary was inspired to ban plastic bags because the UN called for it?
Should I talk about how the UN Education Forum instructed its supporters to use “Smart Growth” as a euphemism for Agenda 21?
http://www.unedforum.org/publications/millennium/mill%20paper2.pdf
What Mayor Warren and his ilk refer to as “sustainability”, “smart growth” “walkable communities” is straight out of the UN Agenda 21 playbook.
I think you must be referring to the fictional account of a dystopian future written by Harriet Parke named Agenda 21. Of course Glenn Beck is on the cover because he bought it from her and she is purported to be just the ghost writer.
Glenn Beck and his followers hate the real Agenda 21, however, because they interpret a few lines from chapter four out of context. The well worn scare tactic is to say it will insert global UN authority over American towns and cities, reallocate resources by force, and evict people from their single-family homes. And on and on.
Those who like to ridicule people opposed to Agenda 21 are either ignorant of the facts, or don’t want people to know that the IUCN and the ICEL have been working since 1995 to get Agenda 21 converted into binding international law. It is not a plot. It is not a conspiracy. It is a fact. The IUCN is not going to stop until they are successful. Virtually every environmental treaty adopted by the U.N. in the last several decades was written by the IUCN.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/agenda-21-fact-not-conspiracy/#m1YoGhUftJfMkcuw.99
Unlike you Marti, I use real facts and verifiable data in order to make my arguments. You resort to subjective snark to make yours.
Everything I said is factual. But World Net Daily is where right wing lies are born and spread.
Free country, free speech, Mr. Norman is certainly entitled to his opinions. But this kind of thing eventually drives away sincere or interested folks who will simply grow tired of all the bluster about black helicopters, aliens, implants, and the attack of the UN zombies. Clearly Agenda 21 is part of the Xenu legacy and Mr. Hubbard, aided by John Travolta and Tom Cruise, is our only hope. Resisting the urge to engage in unbridled sarcasm.
@marti try as you might to hold a conversation, in the end it just ends up feeding the troll.
H L, that’s what I said to my family right after I posted. “I just broke my rule to not feed the trolls.” Sometimes it is just too much fun to resist, but I do know it is distracting from the topics that need to be reasonably discussed so I will resist further temptation. Thanks.
I don’t know why I bothered to dignify the responses of those sockpuppets H L Dewey and “Marti”. There is no H L Dewey or “Marti” on the Newton Voter List.
Did I miss the memo that required participants to post on V14 using the full name with which they registered to vote? P.S. The definitions of “sockpuppet” and “blog handle” are actually different. You could look it up.
Tricia, why should we take trolls like you, “H L Dewey” and “Marti” seriously when you can’t even use your own names? When I addressed you by your given name a couple years ago, you freaked out on me.
As for Agenda 21, I think that the Heritage Foundation, Hal Shurtleff and Conservation Officer Dave Kopacz know more about Agenda 21 than “Marti” and “H L Dewey”. Unlike you, I use real facts and verifiable data to make logical conclusions while you resort to subjective point and spluttering posts.
http://www.jazzpatriot.com/2012/05/south-coast-residents-learn-about.html
I post under my real name, just not my full name, because FULL NAMES ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE OWNERS OF THIS BLOG. Their blog, their rules. If they were to change the rules, I might choose to go elsewhere. If the current rules aren’t to anyone’s liking, they should choose to do the same.
The guidelines also suggest treating each other with respect, and not making personal attacks. Basically, be nice Those who consistently cannot abide by these social norms will be banned. Again.