Nomination papers for this fall’s city municipal elections won’t even be available until May 1 but already some early battle lines are being drawn. Here’s an email Kathleen Kouril Grieser (an activist with the Newton Villages Alliance and organizer of the Austin Street opponents) sent Thursday to a Newton Highlands list serve.
Hello Highlands Neighbors,
I’m hearing from many of my neighbors, and friends from all parts of Newton, that they’re concerned about over-development and the impacts on schools and the cost of living in Newton. They’re looking for leaders who will protect our seniors; promote the walkability of our villages, preserve our neighborhoods and green spaces; enhance our commercial tax base with high-skills employers; and put the city on a course to sustainability and a stronger fiscal foundation.
So there’s good news from Newtonville, where we have two great new candidates for Ward 2 City Councilor at Large – Jake Auchincloss and Lynne LeBlanc. Councilors at Large are elected by all Newton voters, not just the ones from their ward, so if you’d like to hear about opportunities to attend upcoming meet-the-candidate events where you can get to know Jake and Lynne, please take a moment to email your name and phone number to: [email protected]
Thank you and best wishes,
Kathleen Kouril Grieser
Greg, in fairness, I think the headline should read “Kathleen Kouril Grieser appears to be backing two city council challengers.” While Grieser is involved in NVA and states many shared goals, this letter was actually signed and did not mention the NVA by name — sort of the opposite of the usual NVA position problem you and I often complain about!
Entirely reasonable suggestion Adam. The headline has been changed to remove the reference to the NVA. Thanks for the suggestion.
Would be interesting to get a statement from Jake Auchincloss on his exact position, both regarding the issue in general and NVA in particular. I won’t assume that this endorsement automatically means he’s aligned with either the group or Kathleen Kouril Grieser, but it certainly warrants clarification one way or the other at this point. I read his positions, and I’ve heard some of them relayed previously, and it seems to me (possibly incorrectly) that he’s hedging a bit. Which he’s free to do and would even be politically understandable (but again, I can’t assume he’s doing it intentionally), but it wouldn’t be fair to the voters. He should stake out a clear position publicly — even if it’s just “I’m not sure yet, and I’d like to get more feedback from the city’s voters first” — so we know where he stands on what is shaping up to be a defining issue for the 2015 city elections.
At the very least, I’m personally confused as to how he would earn (even passively!) this ringing endorsement in light of his website positions that imply strongly or state outright positions that are fine with me but should be raising alarm bells with Kathleen Kouril Grieser et al. I mean, he even favorably cites Brookline, that purported den of quasi-urban iniquity that so frightens so many of the anti-“over”-development activists.
I suppose it’s possible too that some of the activists just haven’t figured out that some of the positions they support are almost certainly only possible through other policies they strongly oppose. Walkability and strong village centers is, to some degree, quite dependent on higher density, for example.
In any case, I look forward to his clarification, as I don’t know where exactly he stands on the issue, and I’m eager to find out.
Excellent points, Bill. It’s also possible that Grieser’s enthusiasm is aimed at replacing incumbents who haven’t been all that receptive to her views. It will be interesting to hear what the candidates have to say. Interesting that LeBlanc got what sounded like a ringing endorsement from Geoff Epstein the other day, too.
When I see “anti” in a headline, it throws off red flags. But then again, Bill O’Reilly gets really great ratings.
It’s usually more fair to say what a person is FOR, rather than what they are against. (“Low density proponent” or even maybe “Crusader for community preservation”)
Great to have new blood involved. Let’s encourage it. Not rip it down.
Kathleen Kouril Grieser is a resident of Newtonville who has clearly stated her position on what should happen to a parking lot in that village. That’s it. Until Ms. Kouril Greiser becomes informed and involved in issues other than her pet project, I see no reason to provide her with a larger voice on who should be on the BOA. The BOA makes decisions on a broad spectrum of issues that affect the entire city.
Sorry, Greg, but this is red meat.
As an aside, Mr. Auchincloss is definitely hedging on this issue, saying one thing to one person and something quite different to another – in the same room, at the same event.
@Jane,
Would it be presumptuous to suggest you are at the other end of the spectrum and anti conservation / greenspace 😉
No, it would not.:) I view each development on its merits. As as example, the Rowe St. project is really bad in my estimation, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone would want to live on Wells Ave.
My point is that running for Alderman based on one issue demonstrates a lack of understanding of the job and the many important issues the BOA must grapple with. At the moment, the BOA is dealing with an aging storm water system, oversees the building of three school buildings and three fire houses, responds to issues constituents bring to them, sets water and sewer rates, sets the tax rate for commercial and residential properties, and the list goes on and on. I haven’t heard Ms. Kouril Grieser speak about any issue other than the fate of a parking lot in Newtonville. If we want a well run city, then we need to elect aldermen who have a keen interest in as well as some knowledge of a broad range of issues.
OOPS! I meant to say yes, it would be presumptuous to say I’m on the far end of any spectrum, not do I see or hear from many people who are.
@ Jane,
You ” havn’t heard Ms Kouril Greiser speak out about any issue other than Austin Street parking lot” ? Where have you been , asleep under a rock? Do you go to Public hearings at city hall ? Have you checked out the NVA website. ? Do you ever pick up the TAB ?
OK you don’t like her,.. But get real here !
I’ve read everything she’s written publicly. Not only do I not dislike her, I wouldn’t know her if we met face to face. Why would I dislike her? My comment was in fact directed to Greg – why is the opinion of one individual resident given so much attention? If he had presented several letters with various view points, I’d have no issue whatsoever with this thread.
I periodically go to the NVA website to see if the group has disclosed who the members are. As long as it continues to be an anonymous group, it has no credibility. For all any of us know, the people in the group may not be Newton residents, and until such time that it decides to become open and transparent, it’s of little interest to me.
I think that Greg is a secret member of the NVA. He is absolutely brilliant! Come to think of it when I attended that one 4 hour NVA meeting there was a mystery person wearing a dark sunglasses and a cloak and a wig who I now realize bore an uncanny resemblance to Greg.
@At Jane Frantz,..
“Why is the opinion of one individual resident given so much attention” ? Perhaps because it strikes such a resonant cord with the feelings of so many people ? Greg , by shepherding this blog, ( complete with dark sun glasses , cloak and wig ) , certainly provides/ allows “letters” with various viewpoints !
If you are going to the NVA website only to see if membership has been disclosed, you are going with blinders on. Try reading what is being presented, and you might get a sense of just where the ‘dark side’ stands.
Amazing that the mere mention of Austin Street development brings up the terms conservation and greenspace. Only in Newton is a parking lot considered open/greenspace.
“Great to have new blood involved. Let’s encourage it. Not rip it down.”
I think this is an important point, and one that needs to be addressed sincerely– by everyone. The headline, using the term “anti-development” casts Grieser unnecessarily in a negative light.
Greg did a nice thing for Newton to create V14 and enable a place to engage on issues. But too often he himself uses inappropriate language: he personally attacks commenters or presents issues in a biased fashion– as he has done here. It poisons the threads before anyone has commented, and catalyzes a negative tone throughout the thread.
More importantly, its subtle intimidation against opponents of his views. Greg is the former publisher of the Tab, and current head of the Chamber of Commerce– visible, public roles that give others pause when weighing in on public issues, particularly against those aligned with those in positions of power.
Its not appropriate and needs to stop.
This is serious, Greg. Please respect your fellow citizens and city. Engage in issues in a fair manner.
@Adam,
A parking lot is a whole lot more an open space than a 5 story 80 unit condo complex with car stackers around it. And properly designed and landscaped , ( ” greenscaped “) ,much more in character with the Village it serves.
@ Paul,
Fair Criticism !
Greg is the BEST! He works tirelessly on this blog and we should be nothing but grateful. You are to sensitive Paul. If you don’t like Greg’s style then why don’t you start your own NVA blog. This mincing of Greg’s words is ridiculous. There was a lot of paranoia in that NVA meeting that I attended and it is clearly showing here as well in your attempted criticism if Greg.
Sorry, Bill, not only do I find anonymous groups lacking in openness and transparency, I find them kind of creepy. If you want to have credibility, then you need to put your name out there and take your lumps. In 2007, I was willing to do that much and took a whole lot of very public lumps for it, so you’ll not find me sympathetic to NVA insistence on remaining anonymous. If you believe in a cause, then at the very least you should be willing to put your name on it.
My first visit to the NVA website was to see about attending a meeting to find out more about the organization, only to find that even that information wasn’t available. A year ago, NVA had an opportunity to make an impact and you’ve let it slip through your fingers by your lack of transparency.
@Alison-
Greg’s creation (and nurturing) of this forum to give himself and others a platform, is, in fact, a wonderful service. But just because a reader might not agree with an editor’s stance doesn’t mean it’s time to start a new forum. It’s perfectly appropriate to use the existing forum to achieve balance.
Greg is an excellent writer/editor and uses words extremely carefully (even surgically) to make a point. It has been his professional craft for decades. He’s very, very good at making each word count and getting his views across. Often it’s done in a cutting way (similar to a Fox News style), but that’s what gets people’s attention, generates energy. Plus that style of headline and writing is a wicked awesome guilty pleasure 🙂 .
My point was that its fair game to point out the personal bias that comes with that style thus making it entirely legitimate to pull apart (or mince) words to point out the undercurrent of whats being said.
I’d also add that I have not attended any NVA meetings. But what’s being called paranoia might just be deep concern. I don’t think anyone here is paranoid. But that doesn’t mean someone’s not out to get us.
…and Jane’s right. NVA must be transparent to have real broad based credibility.
My use of the term “anti-development” in this headline was actually a last-minute change after Adam, correctly I believe, pointed out the my original headline “Newton Village Alliance appears to be backing two city council challengers” was unfairly jumping to the conclusion that the NVA was organizing this, rather that one person. (Too bad there’s not a known NVA leader/spokesman who could be asked if this was true or not.)
As for placing the term “anti-development” to describe Kouril Grieser, I realize that it’s a loaded term but as far as I tell it’s true.
Yes it’s a little like saying someone is “Pro-Life” or “Anti-Abortion.” Labels matter but as Charlie graciously notes, so do headlines. I’m open to suggestions as to a fairer way to describe this (“Pro-Changing Nothinger”? Nah, that’s not it.)
I would be very open and interested to listening to a candidate who doesn’t want all of these apartment complexes everywhere. I think I’m in the minority because I think parking lots are ok, I shop a lot (probably too much) but like to go to places where I know I can park. I think circling around and around looking for a spot when I can go someplace that has a parking lot doesn’t make a lot of sense. Also, having to walk a few blocks with heavy bags after I have made purchases is difficult.
Calling Mark Marderosian…
@Paul – Yes, Greg can sometimes be intemperate, he can sometimes dig in his heels, he can oftentimes be very funny, he’s usually pretty entertaining, and he nearly always writes well – i.e. he’s a very good blogger.
Note that the first comment on this thread was a criticism of Greg’s original headline. He took it to heart, acknowledged the criticism, and changed the headline, not because he was bullied into it but because presumably he re-read what he had written and agreed with Adam’s critique.
I like that on a blog. Charge in, be a bit provocative, stir things up a bit, but be ready to re-evaluate what you’ve written if you’ve made a mistake.
You go on to say
I couldn’t disagree more with that sentiment. I want more of our people in various types of public roles to speak as clearly and publicly as they can on where they stand on public issues. To me, that’s a good thing.
A few of our elected officials (Ted Hess Mahan, Steve Siegel and others) regularly weigh in here on Village14 on various issues. That’s an extremely thankless job but a huge public service in my opinion. I don’t always agree with what they have to say on a given issue but I value the fact that they’re willing to weigh in and take the inevitable slings and arrows that result.
Suggesting that anyone in some kind of position of power should avoid taking a public position on issues because us regular folks might feel intimidated when they don’t agree with us, is just plain wrongheaded.
It’s particularly wrongheaded because in my experience, the more official a public a role an individual has, the more verbal abuse they inevitably take whenever they do speak clearly on an issue – far more than you or I will get if we shoot off our mouths.
That being said, yes I do agree that at times, in the heat of the back-and-forth of an issue Greg can sometimes be stubborn, occasionally get too personal, etc. I’d say that’s also sometimes true of you and occasionally of me too. Pushing back against that’s fine, pushing back against speaking your mind if you hold a public position isn’t though.
What Jerry said.
I think it’s great that Kathleen is encouraging people to meet candidates to enable people to make their decisions based on first hand impressions and information.
Will there be a separate post every time someone who has publicly commented on an issue “appears” to be promoting a candidate with a label reducing the person to a simple category?
I’ve never met anyone who is anti-development. If one is anti-abortion, it usually means they want it outlawed. So-called anti-development people don’t want development banned but they are worried about certain kinds of projects that will lead to over-urbanization, high density and/or degradation of neighborhood character, in certain parts of Newton. The debate is about the development choices, not whether to do it at all.
So, using “anti-development” in a headline for something that isn’t really even news seems a little hit-jobby to me.
@Steve: I agree that the label could be better. But on the other hand, that’s the impression both the Newton Village Alliance and individuals like Kouril Glazer give. I’m not aware of any project they’ve ever supported.
Conversely I know people who support Austin Street who oppose Wells Ave and vice versa. I know people who support Austin Street and Wells Ave who are deeply troubled by tear downs and some of the 40B projects that are crammed into tiny streets.
@Steven Feinstein
I do think that there are more than a few people in Newton who could fairly be called “anti-development”. I just took a quick look at the http://NewtonVillageAlliance.org web site. There’s been some discussion, here and elsewhere, about how big a constituency this organization has, but there’s no doubt that it has some measure of support amongst at least some of the citizenry.
I took a look on the NVA’s web site to see their position on every proposed development project in the city that I could think of and they were against every single one. They were also against tearing down smaller houses and replacing them with bigger (McMansions) ones.
If they support any kind of development other than internal remodeling of an existing house, I couldn’t see any evidence of it on their web site. So yes, I think at least that organization’s position could quite accurately be described as “anti-development”.
I’d guess, like any organization, that many of the NVA’s members/constituents have a more varied and/or moderate view of development.
I observed Kathleen supporting CPA funds for Waban Hill Reservoir a few weeks ago.
She’s getting a bit of a bashing on this forum, and maybe thats why the rest of NVA members are hesitant to come out!
@Simon- no one is bashing Kathleen on here. Paranoia big destroya
Kathleen Kouril Grieser has actively opposed development at Austin St., Rowe St., Wells Ave., and 70 Crescent St. Her activism is to be applauded but she has made public statements that need clarification in understanding her opposition to development in Newton. In particular while submitting suggestions for the name of s proposed park at 70 a Crescent St. The following is the actual quote of her email; “To me, history park sounds like a dreary class trip; renewal park sounds like urban renewal ( a phase that terrifies me) and makes me think the park is in a dangerous neighborhood.”
To me this comment is troublesome and remains an undercurrent conversation regarding housing in Newton, particularl affordable housing.
Lassy, what precisely is your objection to “all of these apartment complexes everywhere” (as you put it)?
And you do know that virtually all of these proposals include parking complexes in them as well, right? They’re not just deleting parking spaces from the city villages one lot at a time.
What I’d like to know is how did we get into this position?
Newton used to have over 100,000 citizens (15-20% more citizens) and 20% higher in commercial tax base (more businesses)…probably not at the sametime, regardless, we’ve had the infrastructure and wherewithal to handle more. Does this all come down to selling off some schools 25 years ago?? I doubt it. Electing the wrong leaders who aren’t capable of managing the city?? I doubt it. What is it?
Greg,
Didn’t I (and the NVA) applaud the 54 Taft Ave project? Please, check my contributions to this blog!!!
Yes, the NVA is for green space and low density. In the case of 54 Taft, converting a one family house to two affordable units, with minimum change to the front of the structure since the addition is in the back, makes sense. Every case is different.
The question is how much more traffic do we want? how many less trees? how many more students?
Isabelle
@Jerry, it seems to me that NVA’s mission is to oppose what they see as *bad* development. I guess we need to ask them what they consider *good* development, and if there is any of that in the works, then why don’t they vocally support it. Perhaps they need a page on their site called “Now *that’s* a good teardown!”
But I wouldn’t assume that just because their focus is on things they don’t like that there is no development they would support. I would love it if a developer would really test this: tear down a McMansion and put up an Annie Cobb knock-off. I know, I know, it’s a money loser. But wouldn’t that be fun?
Hey Greg and Jerry, if you’re going to bash us, as least spell our names right! 🙂
It Newton Villages Alliance, plural, newtonvillagesalliance.org, and @NewtonVillages on Twitter.
It’s Kouril Grieser not Kouril Glazer (where’d that come from, when it’s right in the headline?).
And as Adam correctly surmised, this was Kathleen’s letter, not an NVA letter or position. Although I for one am delighted to have contested races in general, and in particular, welcome any candidates who will support a 2.21 acre Robinhood Park.
@Kathleen Kouril Grieser: My apologizes for misspelling your name.
Paul, with all due respect, I think you want special treatment. I’ve often fought with Greg on issues, and I disagree with him often. I’ve called him out on his language before. Lots of folks do. Just say you think the headline is unfair, and why. As evidenced by this thread, he does respond.
But I have to say NVAs positions would be better served (and your posts more persuasive) if you focused on the merit of your positions/posts and less on the fact that Greg isn’t “fair”. It comes off as whiny and thin-skinned. And when you and yours state your positions clearly, they are more powerful. For instance, I’m now far more likely to oppose Austin Street, which is a surprising change of heart for me. (not because of the parking, but because it doesn’t do enough to help the village to accept the loss of such parking).
I’ll also say that describing Kathleen as anti-development might not be eloquent, but it is functionally true. If you oppose 99% of all development projects (and state your one project you support is a minor change to an existing home), it is hard to come to any other conclusion. I view Greg as generally pro-large scale development and Kathleen as anti-large scale development. Feel better? Let me know why I’m wrong.
And I do think Greg deserves some credit and leeway. His sandbox. But I’ve seen far worse folks in charge of blogs. Mostly I think he wants to improve the city and create an online community. Both worthy goals.
I don’t understand why everyone is giving so much air time to this bogus NVA group? They refuse to disclose who their members are if they even have any members plus the one meeting that I went to all they did was argue about which one got which title. It all seemed to be about egos more than anything productive. I think that I will make up my own little invisible group and host meetings at the Brigham house. I will serve cookies and lemonade at my meeting.
@Greg,
I am very much inline with the NVA as I have to look at an ugly McMansion at the back of my house everyday. McMansion is probably the wrong description, as it looks more like an apartment building.
When did you ever NOT agree with a monstrous 40B project? Have you been to the ZBA and seen for yourself all the angry residents? Angry, hurt and let down they are.
I salute Kathleen and the NVA. Do you recall those recent ballot questions you poked fun at and was shocked by the result!
I dearly hope seats are contesting this election and people make it loud and clear enough is enough.
@Simon: I challenge you to find any specific comments on this blog — or anywhere — where I’ve been in “agreement” with any specific McMansion or tear down. I’m also pretty confident you won’t find me “agreeing” with specific 40B projects in at least over the past two years, except for Wells Ave and Austin Street.
Go ahead, take a look.
But you won’t find me dismissing everything out of hand either.
You will however find comments supporting the need for workforce housing, affordable housing and housing alternatives for people who want to live here but don’t necessarily want a house with a garage and a back yard.
You will also find me supportive of meeting the challenge of our aging demographics. You will find me urging us to meet the 40B threshold both because morally I believe we as a community should offer affordable housing and because it prevents us from being held hostage to awful projects.
You won’t find me using words like “urbanization” as code for something else.
And you won’t find me demonizing people who build homes and commercial space for a living. They’re legally entitled to do business here and we should be grateful that we have a community that the market finds desirable. That doesn’t mean every project should be approved. That’s why we have a legislative process for reviewing them.
I hope I didn’t start a trend where Hallmark needs to be informed about all of this bashing or talk of bashing happening on this blog. Everyone, can we please respect everyone’s differing opinions and just have a healthy, non-aggressive debate? And while we’re at it, how about having a great weekend, too? It’s supposed to be warm and sunny. Enjoy.
Pulling back to the original post, I see a person offering a way to get information on two new candidates- maybe an endorsement, maybe not, but definitely an encouragement to those running for office and I see nothing wrong here. She lays out her concerns and those (anecdotally) of other residents, but there’s no strong tie to those issues as being the only thing here- only a very weak inference. It does no discolor the letter, and further we do not know what the candidates think about the issues in the preamble- I would be included to hear them out, regardless (if not because of) of views of other endorsers.
I’d be more interested in what is behind the email address, were I to give my info to it- is that just Kathleen’s address from which she will send updates on candidate forums and the like, or is it associated with another group? Neither is necessarily a problem for me, but I would like to have that made more clear.
By the way, I don’t live in the Highlands, but as the At-LArge seat is voted on citywide, I definitely am taking interest- as should we all.
On the other hand- Amy, I find you remarks to be highly insensitive, and borderline offensive, to those who prefer the cold weather . 😉
@Doug: Thanks for bringing this back on point. There’s nothing wrong at all with Kouril Grieser advocating for candidates she believes in. In fact that’s a good thing. (It’s debatable if Kouril Grieser should be allowed to do so on a Newton Highlands list serve, given that she isn’t a Highlands resident and it’s not even clear if the meet and greet is happening in the Highlands. But that’s really a policy decision for whomever moderates the Highlands list.)
But as Bill thoughtfully articulated at the top of this thread, this is not necessarily the best thing for candidates.
Auchincloss risks being affiliated with a platform that, from my one conversation with him, probably doesn’t accurately represent all his views of development. I don’t think I’ve met LeBlanc, but now my first impression of her is, “Oh, she’s one of those just say no to all development types too,” even though her views may be more nuanced.
I think Kouril Grieser’s email hurts these folks more than helps them and that’s why it was a bad decision on her part. I’d say the same thing if Josh Norman, Chris Steele, Gerry Chervinsky, Geoff Epstein, Claire Sokoloff or Greg Reibman had published that same sort of message on a public list serve (as opposed to a private email to a small group of friends which at this stage of a campaign is exactly what should be happening).
@Jake: I’m glad you weighed in. For those wondering, I wrote my comment before seeing his.
But yeah, that’s what I was envisioning when I suggested it’s best when candidates first get to define themselves.
@Doug: That made me smile! First for the day! Thanks!
To answer Bill, I guess my main objection is we have already added over 300 people per square mile in Newton, and it is already difficult to get from one end of the city to the other because there is much more traffic. I think it gets to a point where we simply don’t have the space. I brought up the parking lot things because people seem to think the Austin st and the Newton Ctr parking lots are “bad” and I’m a vote for having parking lots, just my opinion. If you tear down a single family home and replace it with a nicer single family home, the amount of people does not change that much. But adding apartments keeps adding a lot of people and it feels like we are overflowing – especially if you read these blogs about crowded schools and the associated costs.
@Bill, I welcome the opportunity to reach active Newton voters on this thread. I am running for alderman-at-large from Ward 2 (name change isn’t official yet!) to bring new leadership to Newton politics on the issues that will define quality of life for everyone from seniors to my generation: walkable village centers for families and seniors, sustained infrastructure investment, efficient delivery of public services, and the expansion of our commercial tax base to support world-class education without overburdening residential property owners.
I have the education to make thoughtful decisions, informed by my research at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Project on Municipal Innovation and my work with MIT’s CityScience initiative; and I also have the experience, drawn from two deployments as a Marine officer commanding multi-national operations, to lead decisively in turbulent circumstances.
Effective leadership means listening before acting. It means being an honest broker between competing, even adversarial interests. It means encouraging a debate about issues while discouraging an argument about people. In that vein, I have spoken in depth with myriad Newton activists about the above issues, including many members of:
Engine 6
Newton Villages Alliance
Newton Villages
Newton Economic Development Commission
Newton Council on Aging
Board of Aldermen
Newton School Committee
Transportation Advisory Group
Area & Neighborhood Councils
and Greater Boston organizations like WalkBoston, Early Education for All, and the Mass Biotech Council.
Invariably, my conversations with the members of these groups have been enlightening and I have found my interlocutors to be well-informed and sincerely motivated to improve Newton. And yes, that applies to both Engine 6 and the NVA, despite what the thread above suggests. As my grandmother used to say, it’s possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
In fact, it’s critical to disagree without being disagreeable. Through the Mayor’s proposed master plan and Phase II of the zoning overhaul, Newton has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to chart its physical and social character. We will miss that opportunity, however, if we polarize ourselves, both on the Board and in the city writ large, over each individual project – staggering along from fight to fight – instead of working to craft a vision of a walkable future that many residents can embrace, and that informs zoning and development going forward:
(1) Mixed-use zoning of moderate density in the village centers that favors local retail and that is revenue-positive for the City of Newton. Newton Center and Newtonville, for example, used to feature three-story facades in the 1950s; let’s encourage their restoration
(2) Revamping the accessibility of public transit for our seniors and residents with disabilities
(3) The persistent recruitment of private-sector transportation complements to the MBTA, which we all know isn’t about to expand or upgrade its Green Line any time soon. Check out Bridj, which uses predictive analytics to provide commuter services into Boston, and Hubway, for examples of what I am referring to. This will ease congestion and support residents who do not want to exclusively rely upon single-occupancy vehicles
(4) The implementation of parking improvement districts, complete with electronic kiosks, in the village centers to dynamically price parking based upon congestion and to route a portion of those funds towards village beautification projects. This has worked to reduce traffic and improve the pedestrian experience wherever it has been thoughtfully implemented
(5) The preservation and amplification of green spaces, which are critical to health and welfare
(6) An updated Code of Conduct for the interaction between aldermen and developers, and between developers and the effected neighborhoods, so that Newton residents can be reassured that projects move forward based upon a full and open review of their merits
(7) A multi-lateral effort to bring more commercial activity to Needham Street, which has the lion’s share of land that is suitable for large-scale development, and continued lobbying for state support for the plans, already in place, to improve the walkability of the N2 corridor for residents and day-workers
(8) The welcoming of MassChallenge, with whom I work closely as the director of the MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition, as an incubator in Newton, so that we can encourage young, knowledge-economy ventures to put down roots and, eventually, make up for the loss of TripAdvisor
As the campaign progresses, I am confident I will have the chance to talk to many of you in person, as I have with many already, about the merits of these proposals. We may not agree on some, and I am ever-ready to revise them based upon new and better information. What I promise is that I will never be dismissive nor demeaning to those who disagree with me, as has too often been the case formerly. Effective leadership means listening with respect. I will continue to listen well to all parties as we craft a vision of Newton’s walkable future.
Greg, Thank you for your concern regarding the candidacy of both myself and Jake Auchincloss. The various village groups are great resources everyone. I applaud all who undertake this endeavor to reach out to their neighbors and strengthen their villages. As a new candidate I’ll look forward to meeting many more of Newton’s residents and hearing their concerns.
Lynne
@Jake: respect. nice post.
and continuing to veer off topic, @Steven Feinstein writes
The rhetoric on the website last I checked suggests otherwise. All I see are complaints, not thoughtful discussion, oversimplifying very complex issues and blaming development for all of our problems (including traffic) There are many individuals who have publicly identified themselves as being part of the NVA whom I respect a great deal. I suspect they would have a moderated view of what is a good teardown (or development) and a bad one, as you and I and most people likely do. Defining such things is extremely tricky business, as we’ve seen from past zoning discussions. I’d be very supportive of an organization which sought to openly address these issues!
An excellent question! But how does one ask an anonymous organization?
Steve – So are you saying that it’s not okay to say someone is anti-development but it’s okay to say that someone is anti- conservation/greenspace as long as you put a cute emoticom after your comment? If that’s the case, I’ll have to figure out how to make those things!
What Alison said about NVA. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
oh and @Steven Feinstein, I didn’t intend that intro to be snarky. I’m the one continuing to veer off topic…
@Howard Haywood
I too actively oppose the Austin St Development. This particular parcel of land with all of the building permits is worth at least $20 million to a developer and the City of Newton is intending to practically giving it away. As a real estate professional, I am pro-development, but this piecemeal stuff like Riverside and Austin St must go by the wayside.
Where it the vision of where we are going as a city? The Newton Board of Aldermen or City Council (whatever they are calling themselves these days) spend too much time talking about what limiting growth and expansion (in the form of bans) and too little time discussing issues which will enhance and cultivate growth in our city. Why not focus on Zoning Reform? The Programs and Services Committee (formerly chaired by Marcia Johnson, currently chaired by Sangiolo gets too much air time. Meanwhile, neighborhood schools are being decimated by the recommendations of the highly paid Newton School administrators to the School Committee. I will vote almost anyone with some real gumption and commitment to moving in a direction which allows Newtonians to live with the least government control on our daily lives.
Janet you never addressed my concern.
@Jake
I wish more people serving our city would engage with the influencing groups in Newton and discuss their insight into where we need to move forward as s city. I applaud your posting and hope to see you in a position that helps Newton in future decades.
At the NVA meeting that I attended there was one person there who had done a background check on one local developer and found this developer’s summer home address on Martha’s Vineyard and went and purchased a “Congratulations” card and wrote a rude note inside it and mailed it anonymously to the developer. This person got major kudos from the other NVA members for being so sneaky and creative in their harassment of the developer on his Summer vacation. I found this highly stalkerish and creepy. There were more women than men present at the meeting that I attended and a couple of the women were very aggressive and very eager to get themselves named onto the steering committee. I don’t think that these women have regular jobs that is why they were so power hungry. All and all it was a group of very disorganized people who all had separate agendas and were all having a very difficult time coming to any type of agreement on anything. It was sort of ironic that a group that is so secretive and who won’t name its members cared so much about titles and who got credit for what. I was solicited by this group to attend this meeting and in hindsight I wish that I had walked out of the meeting as it was a HUGE waste of my time. If I could I would send them a bill for wasting my time if I only knew who was in charge to mail the bill to? The whole experience left a very bad taste in mouth. I do not have a lot of respect for that group at all and I hope that they are being charged an hourly rate to use the Brigham House for their meetings going forward.
@Jerry
Please re-read my comment again. At no time did I suggest that someone in a public position should not state their beliefs. At all. I said they should not attack others with inappropriate language, and intimidate others with their language.
They should be respectful. Greg sometimes isn’t.
We need more people on this blog writing like Jake just did, and less Greg acting like he sometimes does.
@ for many others
This isn’t about development, Austin St. and the rest. It’s about being respectful and civil. There are ample examples on this blog, if Greg using insensitive language, calling people names, etc. on all sorts of topics.
PS I only know of NVA from what I’ve read on this blog. Never heard of them before that, and haven’t heard of them in any dialogue outside of this blog. Just don’t run in that circle I guess. So people like Fig who are quick to label others without facts: Slow down. Take a deep breath.
Hey Paul: I’ll be the first to admit that I enjoy a feisty conversation and no doubt my approach could be more, um, moderate. There are two frequent participants here with whom, I’ll also be the first to admit, I’ve used particularly sharp elbows. But it’s not like they don’t dish it out as well. I’m sure there are others. Name calling? I’m not sure that’s how I describe it (except perhaps with those two). Intimidating? I can see why some folks are intimidated when it come to participating here.
I’m sorry I offended you. Really I am.
So can we now get back to talking about something other than me?
The newly formed “Casper the Ghost Village Society Group” is looking for new members and to bend anyone’s ear who will listen. We host our meetings in an air conditioned space plus we serve unlimited free Fig Newtons and cold milk. Please contact Alison for more details. I am in the phone book.
Many in this thread have expressed concern about the language and the tone of some of the comments but no one has found the language used by Kathleen Grieser in her suggestions of naming a park offensive. I wonder why?
@Howard Haywood-GREAT point Reverend Haywood! Why is that????
Greg, thank you for providing the Village14 forum.
A minor – and, I think, uncontroversial point in response to your statement:
“That doesn’t mean every project should be approved. That’s why we have a legislative process for reviewing them.”
The process by which projects are approved is an adjudicative, not a legislative one. In Newton, it happens that our legislative body, the (erstwhile) Board of Aldermen, is the special permit granting authority. In considering permit applications, the Aldermen are not acting in their legislative capacity; rather, they are acting in their capacity as the special permit granting authority.
In most cities and towns, the planning board or board of appeals is the special permit granting authority. The legislative body is generally not involved, unless there is a zoning change. Which body is to be the special permit granting authority is a legislative choice.
You are entirely correct Barbara. Bad word choice on my part.
Jake — Thanks for taking the time to lay out your own thoughts and in detail.
Lynne — Do you plan to elaborate soon at the level of depth as Jake has done or will that be all? I know you might have just been busy today and not been able to respond in more depth but that seemed pretty short and not very informative about your views.
Rev. Haywood — I wholeheartedly agree that there is something exceptionally disturbing about the framing and words she used.
Alison, it is a touchy subject but needs to be talked openly when people use language such as she did.
I completely agree with you Reverend Haywood but I wouldn’t expect to hear anything from her on this matter. They are a sneaky and cowardly group with a bunch of ego maniacs vying for power and control and trying to outwit each other.
Greg gave you ever considered charging a subscription to this blog? I think you should in order to make the grief that you tolerate on here more palatable. Cha Ching!!!
@Howard Haywood
Any more or any less offensive than naming a T station Yawkey Way??
Rev. Haywood, the words people use often bespeak attitudes that are obvious to the listener but not to the speaker. But those words just give me chills.
@Aliason @Rev Haywood
In principal I am a Robinhood Park supporter, and I have attended a couple of discussions about the future of that plot.
During those discussions a number of people voiced ideas regarding the name of the potential park. Whilst I have not seen the email in question, it would appear to me that it may very well have been a brain storming email, and probably taken completely out of context.
I am intrigued about the email that you refer to – was it really public or private?
@Gregg
I did a little hunting around and you are quite correct, I didn’t find anything. That said, I did say NOT 😉
On this particular topic Kathleen didn’t start the thread, she didn’t post here – you did. Whether you intended or not, you provided the opportunity for others to take aim and fire.
I think we can all learn something here.
So, let’s not talk about Greg Reibman.
Hey Greg, how are you???
There’s an old joke in there somewhere.
@Greg
I’m not offended. Just pointing out your behavior as being detrimental, which is a particular issue when it’s your blog and a community resource at the same time.
As for whether we get back to the issues, that’s really up to you. If YOU just focus on the issues, and stop with the other stuff, there isn’t anything to talk about except the issues.
Just be respectful of others. It’s that simple.
I have to say, I think you, Ted, and you Rev. Haywood, are looking for ways to take offense because you disagree with Kathleen on policy and want to discredit her. A couple of dozen people probably were reading these emails going back and forth among the name tryer-outers as we tried to red-team any possible disadvantages to names before committing to one for a domain name. No one as far as I know said, oh Kathleen, you’re being racist, or whatever it is you’re implying about her.
I didn’t personally have a problem with “Renewal Park” except for it being a bit bland. But I did see the point that ‘urban renewal,’ which was supposed to be a positive thing, has come to have a bit of an Orwellian connotation because of examples like the destruction of the West End in Boston to the detriment of residents and enrichment of developers, or more recently, New London, CT (Kelo vs New London takings case).
And while I think it’s overly cautious to think anyone might conclude from a park name that any part of Newton was dangerous to go to, I don’t think it’s racist to say there are parts of some cities that people think are dangerous to go to.
And some of you wonder why people are reluctant to go public or use their real names on the blogs!
“Urban” and “dangerous neighborhood” have been racialized code words, particularly in the North, since at least the early 1960s, particularly when used in conjunction with each other. That’s just a historical reality. Who knows if that’s what she meant (consciously or otherwise), but if she indeed said that, that should be alarming, given the half century of context for those words. *Especially* with Boston’s nationally notorious history. And I’m saying this even while acknowledging that “urban renewal” is a somewhat different phrase with its own freighted meanings.
All of this context, further combined with the anticipated demographics (or purported future demographics), whether racial or income, of many of the proposed major development projects in Newton that have generated such ferocious opposition — prominently from her — means that it’s not a huge leap to wonder if or suggest that there might be a darker motivation for opposing and behind such word choices.
It might be an incorrect leap, but it’s not a huge one. And it’s not “looking for ways to take offense.” Which is itself, frankly, a pretty offensive thing to say to a person of color, in my opinion, given that it essentially erases an entire lifetime of personal experience that might lead someone’s suspicions to be on higher alert.
All
For What Its Worth, it was former Ward 2 Ward Alder Candidate Eve Tapper who wanted to urbanize Newtonville, and quite frankly, a lot of people don’t want that in Newton and moved here to get away from urban environments.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2013/10/video-heres-the-debate-between-norton-and-tapper/#axzz31u4aToYM
As a life-long, 3rd generation resident, I certainly don’t want Newton to become urbanized with 40B high-density developments that privatize profits for politically connected developers while socializing increased school enrollment costs to taxpayers and promulgating the UN’s Agenda 21 social engineering program.
And I have to say, Julia, the whole idea of a “memorial park” for living African-American residents of Myrtle Village who were evicted from their homes, which were then demolished to make way for an expressway for the convenience of mostly white suburbs is demeaning. The true stories of the MassPike extension and the Cross-Bronx Expressway are just two examples of neighborhoods that were torn apart by planners who elevated expediency and the convenience of affluent predominantly white suburbs over the social fabric of established urban minority communities. Which, not coincidentally, is also why “urban renewal” got such a bad name.
The fact that white folks who never have to experience the more subtle but every bit as oppressive impacts of systemic racism are not sensitive to how their words can wound is a conversation our society still needs to have. That is why there is such a gulf between the way white people and people of color perceive the killings of Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner and now Walter Scott. Not to put too fine a point on it, Julia, but Rev. Howard Haywood has to live it every day; you and I do not.
People of all ethnic backgrounds have expressed to me their preference that Newton remain a suburb with trees and open space rather than become a Somerville or Cambridge or Brookline.
Sometimes a park is just a park.
It was just a park, Emily, until the proponents of the “memorial park” concept injected the heartless destruction of a long-established minority neighborhood into the conversation.
I think of and aspire for Newton to be both suburban and urban: leafy suburban neighborhoods surrounding urban village centers.
Broad brush monolithic terms that describe Newton is how we end up inappropriately conflating McMansion teardowns with compact, affordable urban housing developments.
I agree with the NVA on the McMansion teardowns but not on its desire to stop compact transit oriented development in/near village centers.
Emily – Now that’s one giant leap! Who said anything about cutting down trees and getting rid of open spaces? In fact, if that were the criteria, each a number of the developments would pass with flying colors because most have no trees and are just run down parking lots (Chestnut Hill Square, the Parks and Rec space, Austin St.).
First someone uses the term “anti-green space” to describe a poster, and now you’re implying that building housing means that we are going to cut down trees and lose green space. This is the type of hyperbole that’s not helpful in a reasoned discussion. We all like green space and trees, but we also have a housing problem exacerbated by the tear downs of moderately priced homes. The question is how can we provide housing that is moderately priced so middle income people can still move to Newton and how can long time residents age in place once they are no longer in a position to maintain a house. I’d really like to hear a few ideas about how that can happen.
Emily, thank you.
What are they proposing to name this park? Are they really trying to call it the Robinhood Park? People who make their livings as writers and by being manipulators of prose know exactly what they are doing when they use certain words. I am just putting that out there. There is no mistake in the use of certain words here in my opinion.
Alison, do you know that in the naming of the Park families that still reside in the area where not consulted for their opinion and what makes that so insulting is that their is a family that now resides on Robinhood St. who was displaced by the turnpike who support housing and not the park only reuse. Can you guess why they weren’t consulted?
@Rev Haywood
Just wondering about that email – was it public?
I don’t know how this ridiculous thread took a turn from supporting some fresh entrants onto Newton’s elected board of representatives to names for a new park inferring racism, but perhaps there are some privileged Caucasians who can possibly speak to this. LOL
Talk about privelege… There are several non-taxable pieces of land which are essentially private parks in Newton which could be used for development – namely Braeland Country Club, Charles River Country Club, and Woodland Country Club.
Simon I sent the email to Greg, it was among a stream of emails suggesting names for a park at 70 Crescent St.
@Simon: Rev. Haywood did send me the email. He quoted it accurately. At least three aldermenand our Parks and Rec Commissioner we’re among those who also originally received it, so yes I’d say it was a public record.
LOL, Alison
Now you are getting the flow of the vileness of blogging on V14 (AKA The Village Idiots Blog) by continuing with the name calling and profiling of Newton residents.
I think it is obvious from the comments above it is critical to include all the concerns regarding affordable housing development in Newton. This not an accusation but a realistic observation of the underlying fear that might be uncomfortable to talk a bout but if discussed openly will be extremely beneficial to all Newton residents.
@Janet-Did I strike a nerve with you? It’s hard to stomach when people have your number I guess.
@Reverend Haywood-Has any member of your neighborhood made an attempt to join the NVA and been refuted or ignored or given the run around? I also would like to seriously know if they pay to use the Brigham House for their meetings considering that it is not a group that is open to the community at large and there seems to be some secret screening process that they use to select their members.
NVA-Not Very Altruistic
I agree with Rev. Haywood that these discussions, while uncomfortable, are important. My question, though, is whether there is any reason to think that the group supporting a park at this location would not exist if the project was all market rate?
@Tricia –
I definitely think it would exist regardless of whether or not the proposed project was all market rate. Virtually every development project in the city from individual house teardowns to the big Riverside development project has had vocal people on both sides of the development/no development divide.
@Greg: You asked me to comment here as well as where I had already commented…the thread that asked you to unmask the interested potential candidates who attended the LWV meeting in the Highlands, so here goes again, focusing back on the earlier part of this thread:
I think that you could use a bit more restraint. Demonizing the opposition on any issue is unnecessary when there are cogent arguments to be made on both sides. Listening is important. Kouril-Grieser stands in intelligent opposition to your ideas of what should happen to Newton. She deserves to be heard. Whether the majority of voters concur with her words or yours, inflammatory and derogatory remarks about someone’s arguments does not plead your case adequately. It only sounds like you don’t want to play nicely with others in your sandbox. You indicated that you answered that criticism on this thread. I don’t think you did, nor do I think you have taken it to heart.
@Reverend Heywood: I believe, as I am certain that you do, that discrimination is abhorrent. Do you also believe that underlying prejudice of others against black people is the driving theme of the expressed fear and resistance toward dense development in Newton? If you do, then let’s say it out loud. Not whispering, but shouting. On the other hand, perhaps humanity: black, white, and other, could have a portion of each population opposed to higher density development. I honestly believe that conflating the two issues serves neither argument well.
@Tricia: How many affordable units are you talking about at “Robinhood Park?” If 20-25% affordable units would not deter market rate rentals of the other 75%, where is the “prejudice?”
Let’s talk about the real issues…SUBURBAN VS. URBAN in a previously lower density residential setting. ECONOMIC: Where is the commercial base to support our City Budget going to going to come from? That base has shrunk considerably and continues to shrink. HOUSING: Regulate the expansion potential of current homes to 10% per decade or some other negotiated limit. Promote upward expansion in Village centers to 1 or 2 levels of apartments/condos above existing retail properties. Allow and encourage accessory apartments in all zoning designations at one per property.
@Sallee-You spelt Reverend Haywood’s name wrong.
@Alison: Thank you for catching the misspelling. Definitely not intentional, as I have never had any of my names spelled correctly, I am very sensitive to the issue.
@Rev. Haywood: my apologies for spelling your name incorrectly.
@sallee – my point is that I don’t see evidence that the opposition to the proposed development on Crescent St. is actually opposition to affordable housing hidden behind a stated desire for open space.
Sallee read the history of Newton regarding Affordable Housing and you will see what I mean especially the history of NCDF these fact are the reality. Yes race does have an impact and to deny it is not honest.
@Tricia: That’s my point, too! It conflates “prejudice” against affordable housing (poor, black, old, or some other discriminator) with density and desire for retaining what drew us to (and keeps us in) Newton.
By the way, it is my understanding that 90% of the houses that were taken for the Turnpike were occupied by white families. So, a salute to the 300+ families displaced by the roadway is not a salve to some guilty racial conscience. A memorial park might have, however, gotten some funding for site remediation from State or Federal sources! Follow the money, Mates! 40B developers certainly have figured out how to do that. I would prefer to invite the Developer in Newton to invest according to a clear set of stated zoning goals and regulations, not by threat to the community. May Phase 2 arrive before the next Millennium!
@Rev. Haywood: Then let’s figure out a way to assign some percentage of affordable units to persons of color. Let’s also encourage persons of color who do not need affordable units to choose to live among us. I would bet that my attitude on this subject is more acceptable to the present residents of Newton than is dense development!
None of the “white people” faced the indignity of being denied opportunity to rent or buy in Newton because of the color of their skin. An indignity that you will never know unless you experience it.
two comments have been removed from this thread. One because it was offensive, the other only because it referred to the former.
Howard,
Can you please explain the history of what you are talking about. I think you’re referring to when the pike was torn down, no? Can you explain in depth what you are talking about? ….Are you talking about recent opportunities?
I think a lot of people have been denied the opportunity of all races to live here due to the high cost of living here.
@Rev Haywood: point taken! I hope that our world has changed enough to prevent that from happening today or in the future. But to argue, as Ted H-M has, that the Turnpike “demolished (homes) to make way for an expressway…(N)eighborhoods … were torn apart by planners who elevated expediency and the convenience of affluent predominantly white suburbs over the social fabric of established urban minority communities” forgets that the vast majority of Newton’s displaced persons were not a minority! True, black families suffered a double indignity. But the others families also suffered and remembering it all might not be a bad idea, whether at Robinhood Park or some other venue is an idea that should be examined.
@Sallee – I don’t think anyone objects to the idea of a memorial in the abstract.
This specific proposal, for a memorial in honor the people who were displaced by the pike, was floated as part of an effort to stop a proposed housing development in favor of a neighborhood park.
There’s certainly nothing unreasonable about wanting a neighborhood park. When I first saw the park proponents float the idea for a memorial to the pike refugees, my most charitable self thought “what an amazingly politically tone deaf idea”. My less charitable self said “what a ‘too cute’, cynical ploy”. Either way, including a memorial to displaced homeowners in an effort to stop new housing is guaranteed to raise hackles …. and it definitely raised mine.
Yes, Jerry: but it could also have raised money. There could have been remediation funding from the State or Feds!
@Jerry, are you familiar with this particular neighborhood? It has been densifying at a very rapid pace with both market rate and affordable units. It is not like they haven’t done their part vis a vis affordable housing. But instead of a park, on land we already own (unlike the $1M taxpayers just kicked in to purchase the Waban Hill Reservoir), they should have even more development– and if you oppose that then you are not a good person, seems to be the key talking point.
I find it curious that no one spoke up to put housing on the site of the Waban Hill Reservoir in Chestnut Hill, where there is no pressure from density and is located in one of the most expensive areas of our expensive city.
Also, across the country parks are used to memorialize all kinds of things. Washington D.C. is rampant with them. Unlike say a bridge that you drive over quickly (the one over the Mass Pike in Newtonville comes to mind, named for a soldier in WWII), a park allows you to stroll, to sit, to take the time to contemplate the park’s namesake, if you so desire.
WE NEED A VISION!!!!! Not psychedelic, but entrepreneurial, creative and satisfying to most (if not all). Where are the new ideas?
Meanwhile, I just perused Jake Auchicloss’s website and I like what I read.
Disclaimer: I am not an activist. Since I struggle at looking at the world through a single lens of one issue, I am neither a member of the NVA nor Engine 6; and I am a Newton registered voter who is unaffiliated with any political party, since I have not found any party to represent my concerns and interests openly and adequately.
Hi Emily – I don’t remember the Waban Hill Reservoir in Chestnut Hill being discussed on V14. But, when I was asked my opinion about it, I was opposed. I live near it and have walked around it. IMHO the City has just purchased an attractive nuisance – not physically attractive, but dangerously attractive. The reservoir has steep walls on either side of it, no ladder or steps out and water deep enough to drown in. It’s surrounded by an ugly, corroded metal fence.
The theory I’ve heard about it’s purchase is neighbors were afraid BC would buy the land and put dorms on it. I think its location (near the Green line) would have been great for affordable housing.
I just caught up on emails- and realized this also came over the Newton Corner listserv as well. As this refers to a city-wide race, I see nothing wrong with that, and assume it went over other village listservs too. I still see it as, yes, an opinion on the issues being expressed and am a little concerned that the email presumes both candidates’ endorsement of the issues as presented in the email, but I wasn’t troubled by the overall message that we have two new candidates and should welcome opportunities to hear them out.
Since we’re talking disclaimers (and, again, about the original topic), Lynne LeBlanc is a friend, and I also know her from her role as PTO lead at NNHS. That’s not the same as knowing (or even agreeing or disagreeing with) her positions on citywide issues, but I know I can vouch for her personally.
On to the races. I’m looking forward to hearing more from all the candidates directly.
@Doug and Sallee: Once again, I never suggested that Kouril Grieser did anything “wrong” other than doing a strategic disservice to two candidates who I feel would be better off defining themselves this early in the election cycle. There’s plenty of time later for endorsements.
I promise you I would have written essentially the same thread if it had come from someone like Gerry Chervinsky, Claire Sokoloff or Ted Hess-Mahan (and if the TAB Blog archive still existed, I suspect I could point to examples). Only difference is that Chervinsky, Sokoloff and Hess-Mahan have enough experience to know not to issue such a statement in public for this very reason. I’m sure Kouril Grieser is smart enough that she will learn from this too.
Jake Auchincloss did a great job distancing himself from this particular endorsement here and Lynne LeBlanc to a lesser extent here. Smart moves on their parts.
Finally, as I also said earlier, I personally think that message was inappropriate for the Newton Highlands list serve, only because I’d prefer the posts on a village list serve be restricted to either (a) that village’s residents (b) specific village issues or (c) events happening in that village. But that’s really a policy decision for the person(s) who moderate that list serve.
I just noticed something that makes me wonder if I was wrong when I suggested that the Kouril Grieser email was unintentionally doing a disservice to Auchincloss and LeBlanc by suggesting that they were aligned with her “anti-all development position” rather than letting the candidates define themselves.
I’m referring to this portion of the her email..
The email address ([email protected]) suggests the possibility that perhaps there is an organized group working to elect both candidates or even that perhaps Auchincloss and LeBlanc will be combining resources, making joint appearances, sharing mailings and are running as a slate.
I know our two candidates are reading this, so my question to Jake Auchincloss and Lynne LeBlanc is: Are you running as a slate? Is NewW2atLarge part of your campaign strategy? Are your campaigns behind this email address?
BTW, Credit to Doug for wondering about the NewW2atLaerge email earlier.
@Emily Norton – My post said
What I was commenting on was what appears to be me to be either tone deafness or cynicism on the part of the park proponents in proposing that specific memorial. I totally understand neighbors lobbying to keep the land as a park rather than new housing. I just bristle though at what appears to be using a memorial to those who lost their houses, as a way to garner support for stopping the new housing.
That may not have been their intent but that’s sure how it looks.
Kouril Grieser was only putting out the word that there are two candidates running against incumbents. As far as I know she was not endorsing anyone. Greg continues to make assessments that are not necessarily there and it is disservice to public debate. To my knowledge no one put Greg in charge of “schooling” Kouril Grieser or any candidates on engaging the community.
What Jerry saud: “I just bristle though at what appears to be using a memorial to those who lost their houses, as a way to garner support for stopping the new housing.”
Why were the families who lost homes to the Pike not included in the process or encouraged to design a commemoration that they deemed suitable and respectful of their experience? Without their input, this Crescent St. park looks manipulative at best, cynical at its worst.
Emily Norton said
I love this idea
@Greg, I’m one of the manager’s of the Highlands Google group. The policy for membership is that you don’t have to live in the Highlands but the posts should be relevant to the neighborhood. I wanted to include people who live close by or for whatever reason have an interest in this village, in addition to people who live or work here. There are several subscribers who are not residents of the village – and that is fine. It’s really about the content.
Whether Kathleen’s email was inappropriate was debatable because it’s not about a Highlands-only issue. However, development is a big concern here: there are over 300 historic homes in the Highlands, an effort is under way to establish a local historic district, and there is plenty of debate/concern about residential projects (e.g. the special permit at 143 Lincoln St.)
The main thrust of her email though seemed to be to solicit interest in a meet-the-candidates event. I took that to mean she was looking for potential hosts *in the Highlands* – or enough interest to organize such an invent *in the Highlands*.
Quoting from her email which was addressed to Highlanders: “…so if you’d like to hear about opportunities to attend upcoming meet-the-candidate events where you can get to know Jake and Lynne, please take a moment to email your name and phone number”. Not the plural “events.”
So, she’s not saying there is an event in Newtonville that Highlanders should attend. She is saying that multiple events – probably in different locations – will be organized, and if you Highlanders are interested, let me know. Knowing that NH has a lot of “anti-development” types, I’m not surprised she surmises there may be enough interest to get a fundraiser going in this village. I’m sure lots of people here would love to have such an event they could walk to.
Just to be clear, I am not pro- or anti- development per se and I am not a friend of Kathleen Kouril Grieser or working with her, and I don’t know Jake or Lynne (actually I will be talking to Jake on the phone in a week, but so far I have never spoken to him.). I’m also not involved at all with NVA.
I do want to encourage posts on the Highands group to be specific to the village as much as possible. As a result of this, I might tweak the level of moderation as a result of your feedback, which I do appreciate.
@Steven: Thanks for your thoughtful response.
It appears that some people are way too into themselves and create controversy where there is none. Crescent St is about open space, and building a neighborhood treasure; and there are ideas about what to do with the space once it is returned to the city. At that right time everyone can and should weigh in, and at that time the proper park can be designed and dedicated.
It’s time for the city to move forward and Jake is taking the right approach, and one that I both advocate and follow: Go out and meet with everyone and see about their ideas, look for common ground and lets move the city forward. Everyone that I have spoken with wants good things for Newton and there is a place for everyone. Newton has problems but they’re good and solvable problems.
We’ll get housing built, and we will do so by respecting everyone’s rights.
My, so much to catch up on after a lovely morning of tree planting, afternoon of covering Cambodian New Year in Lowell, and town election in Billerica. If I have the energy and anyone still cares on April 16, I will try to compile the name discussion so you all will have context, but I really have to get home and sleep and spend the next two days doing my taxes.
I will just note that Rev. Haywood got that email along with everyone else when Kathleen sent it, on February 25 (and he was on the email list because, from all indications at that time, he was a supporter of the park idea). If Kathleen’s words were so terrible, why not point it out at the time, instead of waiting for a month and a half?
So based on the timing, I stand by my opinion that the outrage has to do with current policy differences.
Regarding “urban” being a code word, I beg to differ. The first thing I think of when I hear “urban” is probably “concrete.” Cities, from Stockholm to Seattle to Singapore. Places where you can get around by bus or subway. Places with buildings higher than three stories.
Although I often hear the word in the context of “urban forestry,” which is the arboriculture term for the care and management of trees in urban areas, where you’re looking at trees one at a time with a view to keeping them, as opposed to regular forestry where you’re harvesting them for lumber or paper, or managing a national or state forest. So urban forestry encompasses street and park trees in small towns and suburbs, not just big cities.
So to sum up, I think “urban” is a perfectly useful word that we should not be afraid to use.
@sallee pl consider running for alderman (council) seat. We really need someone like you
@James Cote –
Which people are you referring too?
If you’re talking about Rev Haywood, I’d take great exception to that. Rev Haywood has been working selflessly for decades on all sorts of issues that are important to our city.
If you’re talking about me, well fair enough, I’m way into myself 😉
@Sam: Thanks for the flattering sentiment, I think.
Emily, have you actually BEEN to the Waban Reservoir? If it is the place I’m thinking of, unless you’d be filling in the reservoir (which would be difficult at best, impossible at worst) I’m not sure where you are going to put housing on that site. I also think it makes a more nature park site, and there have been years of study about the acquisition I believe. It has the potential to be great (or just mediocre or even negative based on what the city does with it) But to compare the two is kind of apples and oranges, and that is coming from someone who often finds the inequities between Waban and the rest of Newton to be frustrating and annoying.
And I second Jane and others who have stated the park idea would have been received better if it hadn’t tried to loop in the memorial idea.
And Paul, I’ll happily take a deep breath. I’m rather zen these days. I’ll note that I wasn’t the one ranting and raving about Greg and his particular style on the blog he created, but hey, deep breathe it is. How about you join me? Breath in, breath out. Breath in, breath out.
Finally, it is a bit unrealistic to not expect Kathleen, or Ted, or Setti, or others to not come with baggage when they endorse or push candidates. When Josh endorses publically, it comes with a certain set of assumptions for that candidate, right or wrong. Kathleen’s endorsement for me would weigh against the candidates, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for now. It takes a village to win a campaign I’m told. But the supporters reflect on the candidate, and it is fine line to walk I think.
@fignewwtonville: what place are you thinking of? Near what streets?
Ald. Cote, I admire your passion, but bad mouthing your colleagues is a no, no. So I hope you are not taking a poke at me (like you did with your comment about “egos” on the Real Property Reuse Committee). I don’t think either of us wants to air dirty laundry in public, because you have told me you want to be judged on the body of your work going forward and not your demeanor in respect to this particular issue.
Someone must have had a ‘conversation’ with Greggie, when he starts thanking people for their comments. LOL
Oh you can have one too. Thank you for your comments Janet.
@fignewtonville: I’ve been waiting for you to answer my question about where you believe the Waban Reservoir is located. FYI, despite its name, it is in Chestnut Hill, not in Waban, so perhaps you should revisit the basis for your “frustration and annoyance” due to the “inequities between Waban and the rest of Newton” that you so broadly and wrongly perceive. You might be surprised at what you can learn when you look more closely.
Sallee, it is patently obvious Fignewtonville knows exactly where Waban Hill Reservoir is.
What is also apparent is that you do not understand the difference in the experiences between white and black families who we re displaced from their homes in Newton. White families were not redlined or discriminated against when they looked for new homes. Black families could not find brokers who would show them homes in Newton, much less help them buy homes here. In my neighborhood, the only way black families could buy a home in the 1960s was to have white buyers act as “straw men.”
I will say one thing. Jewish homeowners were far more sympathetic to the plight of black homebuyers than others. Last Fall, I was at Myrtle Baptist Church when I heard an inspiring story from a former Myrtle Village homeowner who said that the only homeowner in Newton who was willing to sell to sell to an African-American homebuyer was a Jewish couple living in Newton Highlands who had lived through their own battles with discrimination.
@Ted: I do understand the redlining; I spoke of double indignities for black families and of the single, yet real, indignity to other families. I know of the days of “No Jews and no dogs.” at hotel desks. I know of the “No Irish need apply.” I would not want the world to devolve to that kind of primitive, publicly non-criticized thinking again. But, as to your assurance that “fig” knows where the Waban Hill Reservoir is, please re-read his words: “But to compare the two is kind of apples and oranges, and that is coming from someone who often finds the inequities between Waban and the rest of Newton to be frustrating and annoying.” I politely, but firmly disagree with you. I think he is gratuitously Waban bashing, as many casually do, incorrectly, and with incomplete knowledge of and prejudice toward people who reside in Waban.
Sallee:
Sometimes I forget that not everyone reads every post and my sense of humor requires emoticons! Yes, I know where the Reservoir is. It is very close to BC, it has a lovely rusting black fence surrounding it, Woodlawn Rd, Mt. Avernia, that weird tower thing, etc., etc., etc. Good ice cream nearby (I tend to remember things by the ice cream shops….) I also know it isn’t in Waban, unless Waban has expanded a bit. I’ve got quite a few friends in that area, and I walk past it regularly to see them and occasionally get ice cream. From what I hear from said friends, apparently there will be new tax exempt formed to help guide the development around the reservoir, which is a great idea.
As for my comment, I’ve been accused once or twice of being anti-Waban over the years (Engine 6/parking meters/lack of affordable housing, public or otherwise). Hence the tongue in cheek remark. I think I’ve been fair, but lots of Waban folks seem to have a chip on their shoulders regarding anti-Waban attitudes. Funny how you never hear the Newtonville or Nonantum villagers cry out against the unfairness of the world’s posters being anti-(insert village name), but perhaps that is because we actually have affordable housing and parking meters. This time I WILL use an emoticon. 😉
This is kinda funny if you think about it. At least I find it funny.
And Ted, thank you for having faith that I wasn’t a moron. I’ll work harder to prove you right, since it is so often in doubt. Sallee, I’ll work harder to prove it to you as well. 😉
And Sallee, for the record, I think Waban is a beautiful village of Newtonville filled with many kind and generous people. I also feel that occasionally those same folks set themselves apart a bit from the rest of us, and perhaps the village views itself as a cut above the rest of the villages. It certainly is marketed by the real estate brokers as such. It perhaps tags Waban more often than the other villages. But I do love your village. I practically live at Waban Kitchen some months. Doesn’t your village center have a potential site up for sale? It will be interesting to see what gets developed in that space.
Cheers!
Sallee – While I’m in complete agreement that there’s gratuitous Waban bashing, I do think there’s also legitimate confusion about where Waban Hill Reservoir.
Meanwhile chiding an alderman for “bad mouthing” other aldermen, then just few hours later bad mouthing a resident says a whole lot to me about what’s wrong with the BOA. It’s not a club with special privileges. The aldermen are supposed to treat residents with respect and decency in public, and frankly, some fall woefully short. The word “shame” has been used at least twice in the Aldermanic Chambersto to describe residents in just the last six months, while those same residents were given no recourse to respond publicly. If an alderman should not publicly bad mouth another alderman, then they need to treat residents with the same respect while speaking publicly. That’s what I have to say about public comment!
OK, FigNV: Thanks for clearing that up. I had a whole slam bang indignant response to blog on you for damning my Village without cause. I’m glad to store it away, but I must admit it was cathartic, especially after a week of matzo.
Fignewtonville,
As I understand it there are two sites up for possible 40b projects in Waban. St Philip Neri at Beacon and Chestnut, and over the MBTA parking lot in Waban Center.
And in Chestnut Hill ? Couldn’t the city surplus the Waban Reservoir, drain it, level it and encourage another 100 – 200 units ?
Come on lets really build some housing in the city,.. Maybe at some point we will come to see the errors of our ways .
I’m telling you, it’s a lot easier than that.
@”bpbill: you’re correct about St. Philip Neri. The Waban Area Council has been facilitating communication among community members, Newton’s Planning Dept. and the developer for about a year. Check out our website at wabanareacouncil.com. As far as I know the MBTA parking lot’s being developed at all is apocryphal.
Sallee:
Give me enough time, I’m sure I’ll fly off half-cocked on something in your village and you can rightfully berate me. All of it stems of my jealousy regarding the private club you Wabanites enjoy… 😉
Speaking of which, let me put in a plug for the Big Night dinner which each year La Morra (in Brookline, but give me a second) puts on, and for the past few years has been putting on at said Windsor Club. A really fun, unique night, where the chef matches the food from the movie. Pretty awesome, especially if you’ve never seen the movie and don’t know the food that awaits you.
As for draining the reservoir, that would be difficult. Not impossible I suppose, but very difficult. Besides the expense, I’d wonder if there were restrictions put on the transfer to prevent that.
Jerry, I call dibs on the first houseboat. I’ve always wanted to live in a houseboat.
@Greg, my political approach is nothing so complicated as a slate, and I have no need to combine resources. My strategy is straightforward: talk to every voter who will show up on November 3rd. I have spent the winter meeting with as many opinion leaders and activists as I could, and now that the weather is warm my team and I are canvassing the wards. We have had great conversations with citizens at their doorsteps in Newtonville and Lower Falls so far, and more company is welcome, so an open request to all who are keen to enjoy this weather and meet their neighbors: if you want to canvass your neighborhood with me next weekend, shoot me an e-mail at [email protected]!
@Jake Auchincloss – It’s great to see new candidates stepping up. I’m happy to see you join the conversation here on Village14 and look forward to hearing more about your candidacy in the months ahead.
At times it can be tough crowd here on the blogs but I hope it’s good way to connect with potential voters.
@ Jerry Reily,
Bring it on . A great seismic solution ! Until the first tsunami. Then there is Crystal Lake,.. Hammond Pond,.. The Charles.
Just think how many units we could build !
@ Fignewtonville,
And Jerry’s houseboats look affordable ! Great for Retirees too,.. Many hours of quiet fishing and gentle rock and roll. But remember the requirement of two cars per unit. We’d have to cut a few trees, and Demo some houses for the parking lots. Then there’s the dingy dock, a club house, and some convenient shopping,.. A few banks,.. Nail salons,.. Hummm
@ Fignewtonville,
Let’s not worry about draining a reservoir. It would be easier than digging a quarry like they did up the street by city hall.
Just punch a hole in it, drain it down Commonwealth ave, put a guard house in front . Some barbed wire around the top and Chestnut Hill will have Newtos first gated community.
Then we can build one of those new slender towers like NYC and Miami,.. Maybe 40 stories tall where each floor is its own unit, and there is an elevator for your car so you can park it in your apartment.
The first 10 floors (25%) will be affordable walk ups. You can’t have too many elevators.
And just think,.. We can begin to develop our own skyline of high rise housing. Every village will have a few towers,.. And like Trumps name on his in New York and Chicago , I’m sure we can find someone to dedicate them to here in Newton.
Suggestions,.. ????
At 152 comments and being way off the original topic, this thread has woven a discussion fabric of humor and hurtfulness. I suggest that we start a new conversation with a bit more civility and a heavy hand of wit to move us on to topics of real importance to Newton, like who has chosen to run for political office here. Let’s leave the epees and skewers at home and ask some penetrating questions about who the candidates are, why we should trust them to do what they say, and where their loyalties lie in their representation of the voters concerns. And don’t forget that whether either Kathleen (Kouril-Grieser or Hobson) encourages any candidate to come before the public, we need to judge for ourselves those candidates’ worthiness of our votes.