During his annual budget address on April 21, Newton Mayor Setti Warren called for zoning changes to spark the creation of more affordable housing units through Chapter 40R, the “Smart Growth Zoning Overlay District Act.”
Ellen Ishkanian of the Globe explores what that means here.
I’m more interested in the City’s current position on 40B. The Warren Administration claimed Newton had met the threshold and was therefore exempt from 40B. My understanding is that the person responsible for staking out that position no longer works for the City. Is Newton standing by its assertion that we are exempt? Is the city appealing the two cases that the State ruled in favor of 40B developers?
Good point Mike. Let us not forget that it was Mayor Warren himself who said that Newton’s Mayor needed to take the lead in selling neighborhoods on 40B housing developments. That was one of many reasons why I wish Bill Heck had won the 2009 Mayor’s race. Unfortunately, Greg and Gail used their positions with the Newton TAB to create and foster the “Rock Star Mayor” personality cult for Setti Warren, which helped Setti win that year.
Do people remember that similar arguments (about state aid) were used to pass the Community Plundering Act Tax Surcharge?
In 2001, the CPA was sold based on 100% matching funds from the state. Unfortunately, Newton only gets 31.5% now. Furthermore, there were calls earlier this year for CPA money to be spent on corporate welfare for the Mass Challenge program.
http://communitypreservation.org/content/info-individual-cpa-communities?town=209
Voters without memories breed politicians without shame.
I can understand wanting more affordable housing, but supporting this law makes no sense. Why would the Mayor support ceding the city’s decision-making authority to review new housing development, in exchange for a trivial amount of state funding?
This sounds like effectively voluntarily creating a 40B zone in exchange for up to $600K in state funds.
Huh?
We’ve been calling for more accessory apartments for years. It maximizes it’s benefits if the accessory apartments are included in the affordable housing stock. I hope so.
Seems to me this is the Mayors attempt to install his own version of Zoning Reform Phase 2.
As our mayor is the chair of US Community Development and Housing you have to wonder if this is about the city or his national ambitions.
Interestingly enough his spring fund raising event was held in Newton last year, this year it’s just across the road from the State house in Boston!
People love to rant and rave about 40B, Prop 2 1/2, the Internal Revenue Service, the Gas Tax, the Liquor Tax, on and on. It provides endless entertainment and gives loud, attention-seeking individuals convenient dead horses to beat in public, while acomplishing almost nothing at all other than adding to the general level of greenhouse gasses. At the moment, these statutes are the law of the land (state and federal). You have a couple of basic choices. 1) Stand your ground as a patriot, throw the tea/booze/tobacco or whatever in the harbor, and refuse to comply/pay the tax or follow some course of civil disobedience. I admire those with the courage of their convictions and tenacity to follow this option. 2) Find a way to bring about a change in the relevant legislation. If you don’t like 40B then set about the process of persuading the General Court of the Commonwealth to change the law to suit your preferences. Never mind whether you believe that affordable housing is important, or whether 40B has made any difference with regard to increasing the number of affordable units, if you don’t like it, you will have to get the legislature to modify the law. Good luck with that. 3) If you are unhappy with how the law impacts your community, for whatever reason, you will have to slog through time-consuming and complicated processes to gain some level of increased local control over what happens in your city or town. This option probably corresponds to how a smart, motivated person ends up dealing with the income tax problem. Learn the details of the rules and regulations that affect you, hire good accountants and attorneys, keep good records, pursue every option and tactic that helps you, and within the letter of the law push the boundaries if necessary. But if all you’re going to do is bitch about it, you’re wasting your time.
40R and 40S are certainly not perfect either, but they are a different kettle of fish, or as the Wizard said, a Horse of a Different Color. Here’s a summary that’s kind of old but still relevant https://www.bostonfed.org/economic/neppc/briefs/2006/briefs061.pdf.
In the meantime, you can rant and rave, blame it on the mayor or whomever, but the fact remains that a ‘reaction mode’ response strategy will leave you open to the next project or proposal from an evil developer or a creative housing advocacy group using the existing laws, especially 40B, to make your life miserable. Unless of course (as it seems with some on this blog) you secretly enjoy it since it gives you a little soapbox to stand upon while repeating the same shrill rants over and over and over again.
H. L., why is it that any one whose views are not yours are rants and raves, and your own fairy tales are so measured and considered ?
Laws can be changed. It’s not impossible. Melanie’s Law changed and strengthened the drunk driving laws, gun laws got stricter in MA, people were outraged when that dog got abused and now animal abuse is a felony, and the laws around nursing homes were changed to help the people staying in them with Sally’s Law. I think a person from Newton spearheaded that law. So yes, if we don’t like something, we can seek to change the laws, or we can vote for people more in line with our views.
Uh, “H L Dewey,” it’s probably worth noting that all that “ranting and raving” resulted in the City changing its 40B policy. People should be encouraged to speak out against all forms of government oppression. Those are the real patriots. The ones who use words [not bullets] to initiate change. One change I’d personally like to see… The end of bloggers using fake names to support bad government policy.
H.L.,
Did you just rant and rave about ranting and raving (lol).
Mike, I agree with your post, and your assessment of that troll “H L Dewey”.
Not only did “H L Dewey” fail to realize that it was motivated citizens who found the 1.5% land area provision of 40B, it was concerned citizens who were responsible for creating Proposition 2.5, which was designed to limit the size, scope and cost of local government.
I admit to feeling truly honored by being recognized as a Troll by two so august and authoritative individuals, known throughout Blogland as speaking with great and – – oh, forget it, gee thanks Mike and Joshua, and you too Blueprintbill (does Mike give Blueprintbill a free pass on the ‘fake name’ thing?), I’m flattered.
@tomsheff – you caught me, you devil, although if as blueprintbill claims, my post was a fairy tale, then I am totally happy with that since a rant is just boring, repetitive and tedious, whereas at least a fairy tale has some entertainment value.
@mike striar – of course you are welcome to your opinion on ‘bloggers using fake names to support bad government policy.” Welcome to the internet. If it is important to you to use your real name (how do I know it’s your real name, by the way, and that it really is you, not someone else using your real name?) then go right ahead. You are free to admonish and encourage others to do the same. This particular forum does not have such a rule, and for myself, I really don’t care very much about anyone’s real identity. It’s a pretty informal place, people can voice their opinions, pass along bits of news and information (“Washington street was clogged with snow this morning”) or whatever. You can also start your own blog – GoDaddy will charge you about $10 a year to register a domain name, which seems pretty cheap to me, and then you can literally write your own rules. Get over it.
Overlay districts that allow increased density in village centers is a great idea for promoting smart growth. In fact, I am sure I’ve heard that somewhere before. I have put Newton’s planning department in touch with the folks at DHCD, which has a wealth of information about the implementation of Chapter 40R in other communities around the state.
I have also been a proponent of using accessory apartments to promote diversity of housing options that allow seniors and others on fixed or modest incomes to stay in their homes in Newton, since before I joined the Board of Aldermen. Unless they are subject to deed restrictions, they do not add to the city’s inventory of affordable housing, but are nevertheless a low impact method for promoting smart growth. Indeed, according to our inspectional services department, there are already up to a thousand undocumented accessory units across the city.
The challenge, as I told Ellen Ishkanian, will be to get the Board of Aldermen to approve anything that involves higher density, even in transit-oriented developments in and around village centers. In the current anti-development climate here in Newton, it is difficult to garner support for smart growth, even though it would promote density and diversity of housing options in already established mixed use areas rather than in exclusively residential neighborhoods. And despite the efforts of myself and others to liberalize accessory apartment restrictions over the past decade or so, it is equally difficult to persuade a 2/3 majority of the Board of Aldermen to adopt zoning that is also unpopular with residents who oppose virtually any residential development. Which is too bad. Opposing smart growth, which would put development where we should want it, is sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
@”H L Dewey”– You’re correct. This blog allows people to post while using fake names. And I can understand why some people may have to. But I’ve noticed a few relatively new bloggers using fake names to post comments highly favorable of both the Warren Administration and School Committee. Other bloggers have no way of knowing if these fakers work for the Mayor, or may even be SC members. So real bloggers should view your posts [and other essentially anonymous posts] with caution.
As far as my identity, which you questioned, let’s clear that up. I am in fact, Mike Striar. I live at 41 Montvale Road in Newton Centre, and my home phone number is 617-332-7645. Feel free to call anytime to confirm any of my posts.
Ted Hess Mahan,
With all due respect,.. Re your statement that ,..” Overlay districts that allow increased density in village centers is a great idea for promoting smart growth “. Smart growth ? What is smart about growth and or the promotion of same in a mature community like Newton?
The population of Massachusetts is growing at only .75% annually. Why must Newton absorb or promote growth at all ?The city is not a charitable organization. What is in ” growth ” smart or otherwise for the citizenry living here? If residents are opposing ” virtually any residential development “, why are you not responding to their wishes ? Who are you in office to represent ,.. The folks at the the State Department of Housing & Community Development ( read the real wstate industry ), or your constituents ?
Its interesting that you are supporting the mayors initiatives. You ran againt him in the last election. It seems to me abit of tweedle de and tweedle dum. When will our citizenry get a real choice ?
@Ted
Couldn’t you accomplish your goals on greater density (don’t agree, but a topic for another day) without ceding some of the city’s authority via 40R? Why would we voluntarily give up our decision-making rights for small amounts of state funds?
Why does Neeton need to grow?
I’d appreciate if somebody could explain why.
Newton isn’t “growing”. Newton needs more diversity in its housing inventory in order to meet the needs of a multi-genrational population.
So why is it ok to replace ranches and smaller houses with much larger houses? Why don’t we fix that? Seems to me we wouldn’t need to build anything and as no building wound be required they would cost less
What Simon said.
It still seems to me that those that support new high density housing in the name of diversity, but also don’t support zoning reform to prevent knockdowns for more expensive housing are just pro-developer, not pro-diversity.
Knocking down $500K-$1M housing to build $2-$4M housing doesn’t make a lot of sense if you’re looking to have a diverse housing stock.
@mike striar – you’ve posted the following:
“I’ve noticed a few relatively new bloggers using fake names to post comments highly favorable of both the Warren Administration and School Committee. Other bloggers have no way of knowing if these fakers work for the Mayor, or may even be SC members. So real bloggers should view your posts [and other essentially anonymous posts] with caution.” Should I take this personally?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQkpes3dgzg
‘Other bloggers have no way of knowing …’ is of course the famous ‘so when did you stop beating your wife’ indictment. Someone who is critical of the folks you don’t like apparently is not subject to the same scrutiny – as I pointed out, blueprintbill and others seem to get a free pass and are not ‘fakers,’ eh?
So let’s just agree to disagree and dispense with the needless personal stuff. I really don’t care what your real or online name is, where you live, or your phone number – I have no desire to speak with you on the phone. You are posting comments and opinions in an online forum, and I am posting my comments and opinions. FWIW, I am retired, I don’t work for anybody anymore, I don’t hold elective office or any other responsible position for that matter. I have paid taxes and voted in Newton for a lot of years however and so feel I am as entitled as anyone else to express my views. If that’s not good enough for you, well, I’ll even send you the ten bucks so you can register your own domain and have a whole forum all to yourself.
Paul-You appear to lump people into 2 distinct groups: pro or anti-development, when the range of opinions is much broader than that. A small group of residents may come down on one side or another of that debate, but most people are able to judge projects and/or housing replacements on the merits. As an example, I don’t mind the larger projects but really dislike the replacement of most moderately priced houses with $2M houses. it’s fair to assume most people consider $500,000-$1M homes expensive.
I urge the Mayor and BOA have the courage to get the citizens voice directly in this decision. Building affordable / high density housing, above meeting 40B requirement is a MAJOR change for Newton.
Just 2 years ago, citizens spoke loudly of their desire to have a direct voice into such decisions. We should include this question on ballot, and make it binding.
Everyone claims they know what the residents want, but never have data to support it. Lets run this city using some real data, as opposed to the beliefs and values of select few politically motivated people.
@ Sam S.
A binding referendum is a great idea ! As long as our politically motivated,developer ‘friendly’, “representatives” are in office we cannot expect citizen ‘friendly’ decision making. There are politicians with agendas that do not tally with the will of their constituents. There is a name recognition , institutional momentum that keeps them in office, so until the citizenry recognize that they are running a public charity, a referendum is the only way the voters can get their way.
@Blueprint – The last referendum question was run by the citizens, in very grass-rooty way. Why not do it this time as well?
I don’t know the process, but glad to stand in village centers to gather signatures.
I know housing is important but one must remember it is the citizens who are providing the funds for all this. For each unit of housing there are children who must attend school. At what point will our elected officials get the message money does not grow on trees.
@John M: One upside to 40R is that the municipality receives funds from the state to defray school and other costs
Sam S.
Checking on the process. Stand by.
Greg,
As I understand it the state is not fulfilling it obligation in making those payments.
Blueprintbill, when Greg Reibman and Don Seiffert ran the Newton TAB in 2001, they enthusiastically supported the Community Plundering Act Tax Surcharge and endorsed it because of the 100% state aid matching funds. Unfortunately the state failed to keep up its end of the bargain and Newton now only gets 31.5% from the state.
State government has a habit of failing to keep its promises.
We were promised that when the Turnpike bonds were paid for, the tolls would come down, but they didn’t.
We were promised that the income tax rate increases from 5% in 1989 to 6.25% were temporary, but it took a voter initiative to cut the tax rate because the Democrat-controlled legislature refused to do so, even though Massachusetts generated strong revenue growth during the 1990s
Deval Patrick promised to cut our property taxes (through increased local aid to cities and towns) only to end up cutting Unrestricted Local Aid, which resulted in fiscal pressures on the cities and towns
Jane-
Not correct.
I just noted that those who support high density housing and teardowns appear to be pro-development above all else. In no way did I suggest that people either support all development or none. I’m well aware of the diversity of opinion, just have particular issues with those that I described above.
Greg-
My understanding is that the state funds are capped at $600K. Hard to see that as likely defraying schools costs for a new development.
Paul, who are these pro-development people who support “high density housing and teardowns”? I haven’t met any. That still sounds like an oversimplification to me.
Perhaps those of us who do not appreciate smart growth are just too plain dumb to understand!
It would be nice if those Aldermen who support Smart Growth would kindly explain why we need it, and why they have little appetite to stem the flow of tears downs which are certainly the reducing diversity.
One aspect to said about 40R / 40B is that the city has little control over them, other than placement in 40R. Is this responsible governing? Is it really smart? Do the people who live affected neighborhoods really want it? Do the Aldermen really represent their constituents views – or is it their opinion we just to need to shepherded in the right direction.
I think one of the easiest ways to view SMART growth is as the opposite of sprawl. It is, essentially denser development around transit hubs. Mass Audubon calls SMART growth: Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
“Priority Development Areas are locations that are appropriate for commercial, office, retail and/or residential growth. They may involve new construction, redevelopment, or adaptive reuse of existing buildings. The 18 State Priority Development Areas in the 495 region can accommodate approximately 21,500 new jobs (over 40 percent of the total job growth projected for the region through 2035) and approximately 3,000 new housing units.
There are three main categories:
Town Centers;
Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities; and
Exceptional Opportunities for Job Creation and/or Workforce Housing”
Environmental groups promote SMART growth as a way to reduce open space destruction (ie sprawl) and reduce pollution from increased commutes.
SMART growth does not mean dense development in everywhere in Newton – only in those few places near mass transit hubs.
Re “Growth”, smart or not, a friend just gave me a list of the. ” Growth of Major US Metropolitan Areas, 200-2012 ” from the source http://www.newgeography.com/content/003569-americas-fastest-and-slowest -growing-cities
Out of the 52 cities listed , Boston Ma- NH , was ranked 40th with a rate .40%. annually. Raleigh NC was first, New Orleans LA was last.
That .40% figure projected to Newton MA with a population of 87,000 would suggest iit should be growing at a rate of 348 people per year.
This begs the question then,.. Why are our leaders insisting that the city should be subject to, and or friendly toward40b or 40r developments ? What is in it for them ? Why are these agendas being pursued ?
I might suggest that perhaps our mayor is intent on developing a housing portfolio he can take to Washington with Hillary ???
But our aldermen who support this nonsense, in the face of increasing constituent disapproval, WHY !
@”H L Dewey”– Some people use a pseudonym because they have to. Others use a pseudonym because they’re scared to stand behind their own words. But there’s a third group of people using fake names to deceive the public about the true source of their opinions and their motivation for posting them. I believe you fall into that last category. You use a fake name. You clearly have an agenda. I’m just calling you out for being a faker.
Mike, I’m not 100 percent sure who HL is, but I have a pretty good idea — let’s say I’m 90 percent certain — and if I’m right, he doesn’t work for/isn’t connected to the city. Even if he was, he’d be allowed to express his views. Thanks to both you and HL for now getting back to the topic at hand and dropping this distraction.
Josh, your numbers may be accurate; however your memory is falling short of accurate. When the CPA tax was being proposed, it was clear in the available literature, including the TAB, that the 100% state funding level would decrease as more cities and towns elected to become involved. There was a limit on the available funds that would be distributed at the state level. The more towns/cities participating, the thinner the distribution was to be spread. I am not sure anyone would have guessed the level would fall to 31.5% for Newton, yet that was a known possibility.
Greg may have committed some acts for which you do not approve; however his reporting of the CPA’s financial impact on the city was correct back then.
I do agree with you that the state did mislead the citizens with the initial turnpike bond issue. Each time the bonds approached payment completion, the state would issue new bonds thus keeping alive the statement that the tolls would be eliminated when the bonds were paid. I believe the misleading was intentional, yet hard to prove.
Patrick, my problem with Greg Reibman isn’t that he’s a left-wing ideologue, but rather his lack of candidness. Greg has a right to his own opinions, but not his own facts. Greg Reibman has the same right to his left-wing ideology as I have in pointing out and calling out how the left-wing candidates and causes he supports have weakened this city.
When Greg, Gail Spector and Don Seiffert ran the Newton TAB, they used that paper to promote left-wing candidates and causes and attack independent, reform-oriented candidates. They may not be the sole force behind Newton’s fiscal and operational woes, but their relentless enthusiasm for their left-wing candidates and causes has contributed significantly to Newton’s problems.
Now that Greg Reibman is head of the Newton-Needham Chamber, he has enthusiastically supported Mayor Warren’s left-wing, big government agenda of override tax increases, grocery bag bans, more lavish spending of taxpayer money on pay raises for the unions and high-density Chapter 40B/R/S housing projects that privatize profits for politically connected developers while socializing costs to Newton and statewide taxpayers.
Newton taxpayers who want to know why their city has so many problems should look at Greg Reibman, Gail Spector, Don Seiffert and Emily Costello. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press in order to serve as a watchdog against government incompetence and mismanagement. When Greg, Gail, Don and Emily ran the Newton TAB, they used the paper as a lapdog for left-wing candidates and causes, which has contributed to Newton’s problems.
I wish I had a nickle for every time Josh Norman mentioned me. If I did, I’d buy everyone reading this blog an ice cream.
Oh well, enjoy the spectacular weather folks!
OK, who wants to chip in 5 cents for everytime I mention Reibman’s name? That way, he’ll spring for ice cream.
Adam-
Ted Hess Mahan is probably the most prominent one. He does not support any zoning form that would prevent teardowns, and is highly supportive of high density housing in village centers.
I do like the idea of a question on the ballot. There’s no way one person can know the preferences of a city as large as Newton and we should have a question just to gage the public’s preferences and priorities. I think I’ll make a call on this tomorrow.
Jane you led the NNHS question, what had to happen (how many signatures) to get your question on the ballot??
40B obviously can’t be touched, so it may be all for nothing, but it still would be an interesting issue. Everyday people of Newton should have a larger role in the direction of OUR city. I’ll post tomorrow.
The referendum has to relate to a particular piece of legislation passed by the BOA.
Jane,
Do you have a link to some documentation regarding this?
It would make so much sense to find out what people really think about this.
And as part of the process one would presume our elected officials will have to take a position and educate us.
Simon- Unless you have a measure the BOA has passed, a referendum is not an option. No, your elected officials do not have to take a position or educate you. That is your responsibility. A referendum is an initiative organized and carried out by citizens.
A referendum involves collecting signatures from 5% of the registered voters from the most recent municipal election within 20 days. In our case, that meant about 2700 signatures + at least 1000 and but more likely 1500 extra to ensure that 5% of the signatures can be certified (people in Newton have notoriously bad hand writing, some people sign twice, others aren’t registered, etc. and the signatures are thrown out). We collected about 4000. That means that you need to collect 200 signatures a day, no matter what the weather conditions are, no matter what else is going on in your life (I was working full time). Because of the numbers of certified signatures required and the very short timeline, signature collections are rarely successful and in fact, I was told ours was the only successful one anyone could remember. If you consider that the LWV has been collecting signatures for a charter commission for several years, it puts the process in perspective.
Unless you have a crew of people willing to stand in front of Shaw’s and the Library from 9AM-9PM every day for 20 days and ask busy people to sign your petition, it’s not a realistic option. Trust me, you’ll have a lot of people offer to help and only handful will actually do the work.
On another note, what’s appears to be undermining your best efforts is the vocal resistance to every development, no matter how good or bad the plan is. If I were a developer in Newton, I’d go straight to the 40B option.
Hi Jane,
Thanks so much for the info, you saved me some time. Here’s some differences between what you went through and the Charter commission. You’re issue was local, the charter reform is based under state law. You needed 5% signatures and the charter needs 15% signatures and you had a 20 day due date and the charter reform doesn’t have one.
Jane,
Thank you for the information.
If you are talking about 40B and 40R then yes, I am very much against them.
If Newton has reached the 40B threshold, then why should we continue to build them?
Why would we want developers flaunting Newtons Zoning Ordinances when the rest of us are obliged to work with them?
The same goes for 40R. I have no problem with Developers seeking special permits. You say if you were a developer you would go for 40B why? I find it hard to believe you not care or respect your neighbors?
In the mean while people talk about smart growth, when in reality we a super sizing our existing stock, by getting rid of more “affordable” properties.
Newton is suffering growing problems, and I simply do not understand why people have this insatiable desire to grow.
Tom-The real difference was the 20 day due date. While there was a sense of urgency, collecting 4000 signatures in that period of time was a daunting task.
Simon – Until it’s established that the city has achieved the legal limits of the 40B law, developers aren’t flaunting the zoning law at all. As you well know, 40B is a state law, not something that Newton dreamed up, and the city should comply with the state law. If you oppose the state law then contact your representatives and state senator and speak to them about it.
My previous point was that if a group of residents resists every development as we see happening in Newton right now, then that encourages developers to use the 40B law until such time that it’s legally established that the city has reached the threshold for affordable housing.
Maybe when you’re older and can envision a time that you’re not be able to maintain a home and yard, you’ll understand why an apartment in the community where you’ve spent your entire adulthood would be an attractive living arrangement.
Jane.
It seems the city is reasonably confident it can defend its assertion of reaching the 1.5% threshold.
As for getting older, that is why I why I feel so strong about ranches and bungalows being torn down and replaced with “large” homes. Many years ago my family were very relieved when my Granma moved and didn’t have to worry sbout stairs.
These properties are ideal for seniors to age in place for as long as they can. It saddens me that they are seen as dated and consigned to history, at least in Newton.
Simon, accessibility and smart growth zoning are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a 3-4 story mixed use multi-family residential/commercial building in a village center is more likely to have an elevator and be accessible/adaptable for people with mobility impairments or seniors who don’t want to climb stairs and want to be able to walk to amenities. Ranch houses and bungalows, ironically, are not necessarily as accessible, particularly those with a garage under or built on a slope or ledge. The added density also reduces social isolation, as there are always people nearby who can provide those essential elements of human interaction and mutual support.
In the Village 14 tradition of hijacking a thread and shameless promotion, I have been reading Newton author Atul Gawande’s book Being Mortal, and it provides a great deal of insight into how we as a society have dealt with aging and dying–and gotten it completely wrong. I highly recommend it.
@Ted
Could you please answer my question on 40R that I posted earlier?
Posted again:
Couldn’t you accomplish your goals on greater density (don’t agree, but a topic for another day) without ceding some of the city’s authority via 40R? Why would we voluntarily give up some of our decision-making rights for small amounts of state funds?
Paul, I disagree with the premise of your question. While it is true that such development would be subject only to administrative site plan approval, as opposed to the special permit process, the Board of Aldermen would have authority to approve the boundaries of 40R districts and design standards for development within those districts, subject to approval by the Mayor. DHCD would approve projects for eligibility to receive 40R and 40S (education reimbursement) payments. Unlike a 40B, which can be located in virtually any zoning district, local officials would get to decide where high density development would be allowed provided it meets 40R criteria, i.e., located close to transit, near commercial areas, in village centers, etc.
While I was chairman of the Land Use committee, the BOA approved several mixed use projects in West Newton Square that are similar to what could be developed under 40R. One is under construction (corner of Border and Elm Streets) and the other is still under appeal (Cherry Street). Under 40R, the developments would be very much the same but the process would not be as prolonged and because such developments are by right, they are less likely to be delayed or derailed by process and appeals. And that means that both private and nonprofit developers are more likely to want to pursue such projects.
Ted,
Being Mortal could be an interesting read. Does it compare the US model to more Socialist Healthcare models in Canada / Europe?
And back to the thread – do we really need to grow ?
That’s helpful in understanding the rationale.
While I oppose increasing density/growth, I’d fully support a process where the Mayor/BoA, put together a comprehensive smart growth proposal, delineating 40R boundaries and characteristics as well as other elements- and then put the full plan to direct vote to the people. We need some democratic engagement by which people can voice their preferences. I fully understand the rationale of supporters- I just don’t agree with them. At what point do the citizens get an opportunity to voice their opinions on the general principle of our housing policy? Simply voting for office holders is a highly imperfect solution- our candidates know to not take definitive stances on these questions, and the underlying frustration- on both sides- lingers as a result. It seems to me that it’s a very appropriate use to have a one-time referendum on broad housing policy in the city. Not micromanaging individual decisions, but a comprehensive plan.
Put a plan together, see how it goes. Perhaps in the process of developing a plan, knowing voters would have ultimate say, appropriate compromises could be found to gain support of most the city.
What do you think, Ted? Something you would support?
Paul, I am not a fan of plebiscites. In ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, the entire electorate could decide your fate in a murder trial, with all the passion, prejudice and capriciousness of a popularity contest. We live in a constitutional democracy, where representatives are elected to decide questions of policy, the executive implements the law, and the courts interpret the law. Nevertheless, we have a referendum process that allows the electorate to collect signatures and try to repeal laws they feel are unjust or unfair. Nevertheless, I would note that the last binding referendum on Chapter 40B lost overwhelmingly, and especially in Newton.
Simon, growth is inevitable. Smart growth puts that growth in the right places. We also have a legal, and I would say moral, obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, which includes the creation of affordable housing. Smart growth zoning could accomplish both of those goals. Being against any growth just strikes me as closing the gate behind you and locking it once you get in. And you will just have to read Atul Gawande’s book to answer your other questions.
Ted,
I agree growth is inevitable, but it does have to continue in Newton. Overlay Districts seem very short term goals, It will not take long for the proposed districts to reach saturation – then what? I’m pretty sure most people associate Newton, The Garden City with lush green space. I fear Newton Hubs will end up becoming concrete jungles instead.
As technology and companies evolve allowing more people to work for home, its doesn’t take too much imagination to see families escaping city pollution and getting further out into the greenbelt.
If the city is serious about housing issues it should purchase and retain ownership of places like Austin Street, St Phillip Nerri. It should strive to make them 100% affordable rental units, or maybe promote some kind of shared ownership.
We often hear about Character, and I believe 40R is and similar are the beginning of a slippery slope of no return.
@Paul – I truly appreciate the wonderfully civil and constructive way that you engage with those you disagree with. i.e. like your style, man