It took James Cameron ten years to make “Avatar” and it just feels like the Austin Street debate has lingered that long. But alas, tonight, Tuesday, June 2, public hearings on the proposal finally begin at 7 p.m. at Newton City Hall, with a second session scheduled for June 9.
But why save it all for City Hall? Weigh in here. And if you really have time on your hands, you can stay up all hours, skip reading to your kids, and keep clearing those cookies and voting over and over and over. Knock yourself out, it’s great for our traffic and nobody takes these things seriously anyway.
[polldaddy poll=”8906633″]
Why miss quality time with the kids when, with a single click of a button, a bot will vote for you?
@ Greg ,.. After the LWV – ASP debate hijacking now we can announce to the uninformed that there is a public hearing?
Extra ! Extra! Read all about it !
Well it seems that this thread has quieted down, but I’d still like to set the record straight for those who will read on about LWVN. A number of people made assumptions about LWVN, but were wrong on almost everything. We do stand corrected, though, about a disclaimer. Since I drafted the statement, I can honestly say that it was not left out deliberately, but rather as an oversight. No Board member was influenced by anyone involved at the LWVMA or by the developer. That’s why we didn’t even think that it would be an issue.
Meryl Kessler recused herself from any part of the discussion and decision in writing, and a Board member who sits on the LWVMA Board scrupulously stayed quiet during our discussions and abstained from the Board votes. The only people who contacted us were long-time LWVN members who helped develop League positions on public housing and land use in the 1970s, and who are still active in the community today.
About commenting on developments, LWVN has certainly commented in the past. We regularly review and comment on affordable housing projects that apply to the CPC for funding—in fact we review and comment on ALL CPC applications. I believe that our last comments on a different development was about the Riverside project in 2011 and 2012. Last year we commented on the process being followed for this Austin Street project, but held off weighing in on the project until there was an actual solid proposal in front of the Board of Aldermen. We also wanted a chance to learn more about different aspects of the project, which was the impetus for the public meeting we held.
LWVN does not take positions on every controversial issue that arises. As part of a national organization, all Leagues across the country base their support on positions that are created after a year or more of study on the issue at the national, state and/or local levels. If we don’t have a position on something, we can’t make a comment even if our members want us to. We have not commented on the Zervas project because we haven’t yet done any education of our members on it, though we do have positions on school facilities.
Other info: We do have two parts to the League—we register voters and educate them on the issues in their communities. We also advocate for issues on which we have positions. We do not support candidates—never have and never will.
I’ll stop now since this is too long already. For those who want to learn more about the League, visit our website at http://www.lwvnewton.org. You can also contact us at [email protected].
I hope that residents ask reasonable, well intentioned, well educated questions tonight and that all of the alders consider those that are. I can’t attend but have emailed a few concerns I have about the project specifics.
Preaching there are just two sides, “yes unconditionally” or “no unconditionally” does the city a disservice.
Going in with minds firmly made up either way wearing “Vote Yes” buttons or “Vote No” without being willing to consider aspects of the proposal that might be improved upon definitely wastes everyone’s time.
Sue, I find your post to be absolutely lacking in sincerity.
We all know that the LWV and its statewide and local affiliates are a left-wing, agenda driven organization that pretends to be unbiased and non-partisan.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/05/league-of-women-voters-green-newton-endorse-austin-street-project/#comment-57132
@Sue Flicop
What is the rationale for weighing in on this specific project, of all the projects that could be chosen?
Greg,
What about asking people whether A) Yes, I like the CURRENT proposal
B) No development at all or C) Yes development, but not this proposal.
Tom. Good questions. But those aren’t the options that are before our aldermen at this time so I prefer mine.
So now might be a good time to remind people about an upcoming LWVN meeting on constructive disagreement on June 10th from 11:30 to 1 in the conference room at NewTV studios. I suspect the discussion will include the idea that constructive disagreement doesn’t get personal and stays focused on the issues.
As to why LWVN chose to weigh in on this proposal, it includes a number of issues that LWVN strongly supports–affordable housing, transit-oriented development, a more diverse housing stock, and support for the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. We heard from a number of League members who felt that our voice would be helpful in the discussion. LWVN traditionally waits until there is a specific proposal in front of the BoA to evaluate, which finally happened. So all these things came together recently, though we have been following the proposals for a while.
@ Sue
Doesn’t the St Philip Neri development meet all of those same criteria? Should we expect that you will be weighing on that development as well? And all future projects that provide affordable housing with transit oriented development? Or just Austin St?
Sue Flicop has clearly explained the process and the LWVN history of involvement in other matters. So other than the fact that those who are troubled by this disagree with the position taken, what exactly is the objection?
Why shouldn’t local advocacy groups be allowed to advocate?
Not sure what will happen on the St. Philip Neri project regarding the LWVN. Our members are starting to learn about it, but there is no application for a special permit as yet, as far as I know. I suspect the proposal will go through several iterations before the developers do apply. We are keeping an eye on it, though!
FYI, the League is pulling together a forum on development for Fall, 2015. We found at our Austin Street info event that many people are unclear about development in general, how projects are financed and the process that the City follows. We’ll have more specifics over the summer, with a date. We expect it to be at NewTV, where it will be televised.
@Sue,
My understanding is that Phillip Neri shall be a 40B project, and therefore you will be have missed the boat if you are waiting to see a permit issued. One would hope that the LWVN surely understands how 40b the process works?
Sue, I’m generally very much in line with the league, but here, I think it is pretty clear that you made a mistake by not very clearly disclosing the conflict. And a conflict can exist even if the person in question doesn’t vote on the matter. Do I think it influenced your vote? I honestly do not. Do I think you should adjust your practice to make it clear when these types of potential conflicts exist? Yes I do. As for it being an oversight, perhaps there was also either a bit of naïve thinking, or a hope that this wouldn’t brought up by anyone?
Again, I support what the League does, and is. I think it is perfectly right to take a position here. But I’d tighten up your conflict behavior, and I’d work hard to avoid the appearance of these types of things going forward.
Also, I missed the meeting. Can someone give a summary?
Greg, I don’t have a problem with the fact that the LWV and its local affiliates is an ideologue Democrat organization run by left-wing ideologue Democrats who are relentlessly promoting a left-wing agenda of more taxes, more government spending, more government power and the undermining of the U.S. Constitution.
My only objection is that the LWV holds itself out as a non-partisan, civic oriented, good government organization.
When the LWV spent $1 Million of its funds to attack Scott Brown in 2011, they showed their true colors. Scott Brown was a RINO who voted with Obama 54% yet the LWV attacked him because he failed one of their litmus tests? Wow!
I can understand why you’re taking up for them, after all, they’re left-wing fellow travelers of yours and they have been on the same side of every issue as you were.
Greg, from the beginning you have shown through your comments that you support without question any proposal submitted by ASP, adding no suggestions for improvement, no concerns about mitigation, infrastructure or construction and you have made it clear you think the discussion has gone on too long. You support everything anyone says as long as they are supportive, but are snarky to anyone with even legitimate questions. So of course your only questions are yes or no, just like the petitions, with no nuance. And those aren’t the ones before the board.
I think it is good that the board isn’t as blind to possible problems and is asking good questions that need answers. It is a complicated project and it is constructive to not be reductive and make sure this development is as good for Newton as it can be rather than just build it and deal with any problems later.
As for a summary of last night. Check out the NVA tweets during the meeting. They are a good overview of questions asked; just ignore Greg’s snarky comment and the tweeter’s too. (Tweeter?)
Same presentation. Rah, rah we are Newtonville’s savior.
Some good questions from the Alders present. And some good ones from the peanut gallery.
Some annoying comments and questions that are pretty easy to weed out.
No answers.
@Marti: As Ted Hess-Mahan used to remind the Land Use committee when he was chair, aldermen don’t get to vote on the project they wish they had, they have to vote on the one that’s before them. That was my only point.
Beyond that, I don’t think you’ve read my comments very closely. I do believe this debate has gone on too long and have said so many times. But I’ve also said it was more important that the board votes — yes or no — than which vote they chose to vote because the divisiveness is worse than either outcome.
Greg, I understand that your polls are not scientific and that the “no” vote is a minority position at this point in your polling. I think what Tom was attempting to identify for the BOA with his “C” option is the size of the voting community that would favor doing something other than leaving the parking lot as is. This proposal is for a structure that is 50% higher than the closest commercial building (48′ vs. 32′), the newly renamed Star Market.
I include the adjective, “renamed”, because it appears that Shaw’s realized they made a mistake by not understanding the community’s mindset when they changed the name and business operation to a Shaw’s model. After realizing their mistake, they have tried to fix their situation. It has cost them a relatively small amount of money in their attempt to bring back the “Star Market shopping experience”. If this new development turns into another mistake of not addressing the concerns of the community, it will not be as easily fixed and its impact will be far greater upon N’ville.
I think hell just froze over because I actually find myself in agreement with Marti’s post:
“Greg, from the beginning you have shown through your comments that you support without question any proposal submitted by ASP, adding no suggestions for improvement, no concerns about mitigation, infrastructure or construction and you have made it clear you think the discussion has gone on too long. You support everything anyone says as long as they are supportive, but are snarky to anyone with even legitimate questions. So of course your only questions are yes or no, just like the petitions, with no nuance. And those aren’t the ones before the board.
Read more: Austin Street public hearings begin tonight | Village 14 City of Newton, Massachusetts http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/06/austin-street-public-hearing-begin-tonight/#ixzz3c1MBlLtU
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook”
I’ve been cold all day. But then I’m not surprised you agree with that particular portion of my comment. And I’ll take some agreement over none anytime.
Marti, I’m glad we’re in agreement.
Regarding “just build it and deal with any problems later.
Read more: Austin Street public hearings begin tonight | Village 14 City of Newton, Massachusetts http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/06/austin-street-public-hearing-begin-tonight/#ixzz3c1VpGUrA
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook”
Just build it and deal with any problems later seems to be the standard operating procedure of Newton’s government ever since David Cohen became Newton’s Mayor. I think that explains why we have a $191 Million white elephant high school, why the Carr School costs soared from $8 Million to $12.7 Million and why we spent 67% more per square foot than Hingham to build Angier, Cabot and Zervas.
@Sue Flicop
This project has multiple dimensions, one of which involves the City leasing the land to a private, for-profit developer. How did your group determine that the price was fair? I assume that LWVN wouldn’t endorse a project if it was a bad deal for the city. Could you share LWVN’s thinking that $1 million was sufficient?
I do remember Scott Brown centering his campaign on being the “51st vote” that would allow the Senate to prevent Americans from being able to access health care coverage. That is a pretty shocking and terrible thing to do. So I think the League was quite reasonable in opposing him. They are hardly wild left-wingers.
Shawn, considering that ObamneyCare has been an absolute train wreck, I only wish they never bothered ramming through the bill.
I think former Michigan Congressman John Dingell said it best when he said “The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvDwFQiSkBU&feature=player_embedded
We all know that ObamneyCare is not able giving people healthcare, but rather controlling the people.
Government shouldn’t lie to its citizens. Obama lied when he said “if you like your doctor, you can keep him, period! If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan, period.” He also lied when he said that his healthcare plan would save people $2,500 annually. ObamneyCare was one big pack of lies, and I think ObamneyCare architect Jonathan Gruber’s remarks corroborated the deception used to pass ObamneyCare.
Hmm. We now seemed to have moved on to the health care aspects of the Austin St. project
Jerry, For What Its Worth, it was Newton Democratic City Committee Chair Shawn Fitzgibbons who raised the health care issue. I wouldn’t have weighed in with a response if he hadn’t originally hijacked the thread.