If early trends are any indications, it appears that voters will have be able to choose between a wide variety of challengers during this fall’s municipal elections.
That’s a good news. The bad news is that all of the new candidates so far (with this one exception) are running for At-Large Seats in Ward 2, including the following new comers…
Jake Auchincloss, Ward 2 At Large
Lynne Leblanc, Ward 2 At Large
Jess Barton, Ward 2 At Large
Cyrus Vaghar, Ward 2 School Committee
Nomination papers are now available at City Hall and must be returned July 30.
By the way, here’s the list of candidates that have turned in their nomination papers and have enough certified signatures as of June 19, 2015 according to the City Clerks’ office….
Marcia Johnson Alderman-at-Large Ward 2
Susan S. Albright Alderman-at-Large Ward 2
Jacob Daniel Auchincloss Alderman-at-Large Ward 2
Leonard J. Gentile Alderman-at-Large Ward 4
John W. Harney Ward Alderman, Ward 4
Diana Fisher Gomberg School Committee, Ward 4
Ruthanne Fuller Alderman-at-Large, Ward 7
Marc C. Laredo Alderman-at-Large, Ward 7
R. Lisle Baker Ward Alderman, Ward 7
Frank Wolpe Alderman-at-Large, Ward 8
@ Greg,
Did you not know the water is different in Ward 2?
I hope to see a NewTV debate at some point down the road between the Ward 2 alderman candidates.
The way it’s going though they may have to do like the Republicans presidential debate and limit the debate to only the top ten polling candidates.
@Jerry-
The LWV has said they’ll be doing one with all 5 candidates in August.
You’ll have a chance to see and hear the 3 challengers prior to that in an upcoming edition of Newton Newsmakers. Probably in about a week or so.
@Charlie: That assumes there will only be five candidates. Still have more than a month to submit papers.
@Dan Fahey – We’ll have to start piping that water to the rest of the city. I love to see contested elections.
@Greg, Dan, Jerry – thanks for picking up on this. If there is one thing that drives me crazy about Newton politics, it is that there are so few contested races. I think it’s great all these folks want to run in Ward 2, but I can’t figure out what makes it so special that everyone wants in on this locale. Actually it’s not just Newton – my personal opinion is that uncontested races are the hidden rot in the democratic process. I feel that there should be a process similar to Jury Duty that says if there are uncontested races in any state or local election, compulsory candidates would be selected from the pool of registered voters just as they are for jury duty, and if you won that lottery your name would be on the ballot. No other compulsion, you don’t have to campaign, but at least the voters would have a choice. Newton also has a particular ‘disease’ with Ward Aldermen, who run and are elected completely within their ward (as opposed to being elected by voters city wide). So you have members of the Board of Aldermen who cast votes of equal weight to At Large aldermen, but who have been elected literally by perhaps 800 people (in a city of 85,000) and have not had a competitive race since some time in the Late Jurassic or Early Cambrian. Yes, we could do term limits, we could reduce the size of the Board, we could do all those things but that would require Charter Reform, and ….. oh, damn, that again. But not to worry, we’ve succeeded in changing the damn name of the position. Ain’t progress beautiful.
Could it be that the number of candidates in Ward 2 is somehow proportional to the amount of dissatisfaction found in those neighborhoods with what is being forced down their throats in the form of ” smart growth” ?
@Blueprint Bill: It is extremely disingenuous to say that Austin Street is “being forced” down anyone’s throats. The idea for a mixed-use development of the Austin Street municipal parking lot emerged from the Newton’s Comprehensive Plan, which was certainly an open public process that started, if I’m not mistaken around 2002. In 2008, there was there Sasaki Charette, also open. Followed in 2009, with community workshops. The aldermen’s Real Use Committee, reviewed it in 2010-2011, followed by the creation of a joint advisory group, consisting of mostly Newtonville residents and abutters. The Aldermen took it up in public meetings in 2012 and in OPEN SESSION approved it, followed by RFPs, more community meetings etc. etc. etc.
And the project still requires final approval from the aldermen with more public meetings, debates, discussion, input etc.
Dislike the project if you want but explain to me how that is “being forced” upon anyone?
@Blueprintbill – Austin St. wouldn’t explain why someone is running in the School Committee race. It’s odd to me that someone is running against Margaret Albright. Margaret is one of our most responsive and knowledgeable SC members. I’d understand it if more SC races were competitive, but it’s only Ward 2.
Why is Ward 2 SC always so hotly contested?
@Lucia: Don’t you think that Ward 2 SC has been hotly contested in the past in large part because of Margaret? It took her a few attempts to get elected. I don’t say this to disparage Margaret at all — I’m happy she was elected in 2013. But she was a candidate three times before she was elected.
What I think is interesting is that we have two young people running for office. I’m pleased to see interest in civic affairs coming from that demographic, and I’d love to see some young energy and ideas in government — particularly on the BOA.
@ Greg,
Glad to see my comment elicited such a heated response! Where there is smoke ,..???
Glad to see your reference to The Sasaki Charrette . It was all about an air rights reunification of Newtonville over the turnpike,.. It barely ( and only ) , got periferal mention of anything on the Austin Street parking lot. All this planning for what we now see happening on Austin Street was quiet insider groups and the city’s planning department and had little community input,.. Up to and including the ridiculous ‘dotmocracy’ charade , ( not ‘Charrette ), ” Including ” the local constituency in the process.
You don’t think the Court Street 40b housing project was not shoved down the throats of that neighborhood ??? !!!!
Indeed, there are a number of Aldermanic candidates running in Ward 2 .
That’s the best you have? Changing the subject to an entirely different project? I wasn’t talking about Court Street and neither were you. Apples and oranges.
OK then why Margaret – has she done anything improper while on the School Committee? I think she’s one of our most effective SC members, often raising important issues others do not. For example, asking that transportation plans for new schools considering student walking distance as well as driving distance when the plans presented only referred to driving distances.
Traffic is a big issue in Newton and designing schools to reduce the need for parents to drive helps. If students can only get to school by car, we have built in an unavoidable traffic increase.
Mike is unhappy about the start times (a real issue), but as others mentioned, Margaret is only 1 voice on the SC. It has been an issue for years before she came on and now, at least, is getting some real attention.
Greg ,
“That’s best you have? ” No!
Oh yes I was, talking about Court Street !
If you go back to my initial response @ 9:11 AM, you will find that there was no “change of subject”. We are talking about Ward 2. That includes Court Street , if I’m not mistaken, and that project as well as Austin Street have indeed been ” shoved down the throats ” of the good people of Newtonville and the commercial activity that exists there. Upcoming elections will be a good measure of just how much dissatisfaction there is among the citizenry of that village, and the fact that so many candidates are standing up is perhaps indicative of same. We shall see.
@Greg-
Bringing up the comprehensive plan argument is a red herring. The number of people who are involved in the writing of that academic document is tiny when compared to the number who pay attention when they feel their neighborhood is being threatened with unwanted change.
The voices are getting louder. Great leadership listens carefully.
@Charlie: The very reason one has a comprehensive plan is to create a road map for, well, planning. I brought it up in the context of Bill suggesting Austin Street is being “forced” down people’s throats. I don’t know how something that’s been in openly debated and discussed for more than a decade and still hasn’t been approved (and may not be) can be described as “forced.”
@Bill: Court Street was a 40B and approved not in the name of “smart growth” but as required by the state’s affordable housing laws. Our elected representatives were powerless to stop it so, yes, you could argue that was “forced.”
Austin Street, is not a 40B but it is being promoted as smart growth and our elected representatives are under no obligation to approve it. In other words, not forced.
Like I said apples and oranges.
@Greg: Awesome spin. you have not lost your touch.
Most don’t have time to sit in hundreds of hours of wonky policy discussions.
Austin has triggered one of the largest turnouts by residents in a policy debate. Why? Because when people feel ignored or sense of community threatened by elected leaders’ decisions, residents show up. aka: to avoid having stuff shoved down their throat.
I bet you if the city wanted to turn the space into genuine green space, 80% of everyone would applaud….quietly…from their homes.
Oh Charlie. You still know how to flatter a guy!
Don’t get me wrong. The emergence of so many candidates here, much more likely than not, is a direct result partly of the frustrations from recent development and proposed developments in Newtonville. And the large turn out at meetings shows discontent, although, be fair, it is not universal discontent. I believe we are hearing many more pro-Austin Street voices than we were one year ago.
Perhaps on election day, we will be able to look at the Ward 2 results and draw conclusions about the will of the voters.
Or maybe we won’t. For example, what conclusion would you draw if one pro-Austin Street incumbent and one anti-Austin Street challenger are elected?
Or what if both incumbents win? Is that a referendum in favor of the project, or just business as usual in Newton where incumbents tend to win, especially against first time candidates?
Greg,..
Spin spin spin,.. After so much, one does get dizzy !
I find it interesting when people complain about the content of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Depth. had numerous public meeting seeking input from the communities, I attended most of them and I would estimate that the attendance never exceeded 40 people. So Charlie’s comment is a bit misleading. If more people participated maybe such documents will reflect the ideas of a greater percentage of residents.
@Rev. Haywood: Here’s something that’s also interesting. The decision to declare the Austin Street Parking lot surplus was made by Newton’s Board of Aldermen in 2010.
And guess who was a member of the board in 2010 which held those “wonky policy discussions” that ultimately “shoved” this stuff down residents’ throat?
Oh and I should add Aldermen Shapiro voted in favor of creating a citizens’ advisory committee to shove this down residents’ throats.
It’s a familiar theme in Newton government, and I’m sure Charlie remembers this from his time as Alderman. How many people usually show up for traffic council and PS&T? No shortage of public process. Then, when the shovel hits the ground, everyone complains that the government is forcing something on them and insists on status quo.
Voting to bring an advisory board in is not shoving anything up or down anywhere 🙂
I always favor community involvement.
…now that the broader community has had the opportunity to be heard, we owe then the respect of listening.
@Charlie: I don’t fault you for either of your 2010 votes to surplus Austin Street. I’m sure it was a good, carefully considered decision.
But it seems hypocritical for you to be complaining now about a process you took part in AND supported.
Other than that, can you please explain who isn’t giving people the “respect of listening”? Really, name names please. Because this project has not lacked public discourse and the Land Use hearings of a few weeks back were entirely respectful
Speaking of spin, there have been over a dozen Austin Street meetings that I know of. I counted. And now that the parking is being maintained, most of my neighbors seem pretty apathetic about the project. Forced down people’s throats? Charlie, c’mon.
There is certainly a rather shrill minority of folks who care deeply about Austin Street on both sides. A fair amount of the opponents have stopped being vocal once the parking issue went their way. But to say that folks are rising up in Ward 2 because they feel taken advantage of or ignored feels more like a occasional politician wanting it to be true than actual truth. Just saying.
Whilst Austin St and Court St are fresh in peoples minds its also worth noting that this is also about attitudes towards “Smart Growth”.
I find it odd that most Aldermen who are behind the smart growth principles are also doing absolutely nothing or hindering “irrelevant ranches” from being torn down and replaced with McMansions.
They advocate for affordable housing, whilst willfully ignore the fact middle income families now have to compete with developers who are now paying over the odds for properties to tear down.
These new candidates get it – probably because they have been listening to peoples concerns.
@fignewton- You might be right that the parking is the issue that was bothering people most.
Like many on this blog, I don’t live in Newtonville. I have no dog in the hunt other than my preference at this time is to not increase density in the city with large residential projects of any type. With the overcrowded schools forcing another redistricting, I think it’s irresponsible to actively promote more overcrowding. I support smaller developments for seniors which should include some affordable housing elements as well.
I thought B’nai Brith housing would have been a better choice than what’s proposed now.
Then again, I also thought a park with parking and benches would be a good idea there.
Good morning Charlie: I hope you won’t overlook my question asking who you think isn’t respectfully listening in the Austin Street matter? Given that the Board of Aldermen is the decider in this matter, that’s a pretty harsh criticism that, unless unexplained, seems directed at your former colleagues. Thanks in advance for clarifying.
Hi – I am hoping someone will help me here. I looked through the two documents referred but dont find much of a reference to Austin St.
Are these the right documents?
Sasaki Charette – http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/30776
Newton Comprehensive Plan – http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/30752
Any other documents (besides the BOA vote) where Austin street proposal/vision was laid out? Really interested in understanding the process.
You know, I was browsing Jake Auchincloss’s website and I found his glowing article about San Francisco’s bold initiative to add 30,000 units of affordable housing by taking land belonging to municipal agencies and developing affordable housing on it, and I got to wondering why it sounded so familiar.
@ Greg
I’m still waiting for you to explain how the Mayor hasn’t been dishonest when he:
— set-up a competitive bid process asking for specific project proposals, then said he made his selection based on “the developer, not the project”
— the “blank slate” somehow ended with an initial proposal from ASP after its election that looked the same as their proposal during the bid process
— they Mayor promised community meetings and advisory groups AFTER finalizing negotiations and BEFORE the submission to BOA, yet neither of those commitments have been met
You don’t seem to have the courtesy to answer questions posed to you… why should anyone give you the courtesy of answering yours?
Under the rules of this blog, Paul is not required to use his real name. But the terrific thing is that the rest of us are not required to respond. That’s the path I’ve selected although, believe me, straying off that path is very tempting.
`
@Ted
I’ll be interested in hearing more about your views on affordable housing when they don’t seem so clearly hypocritical.
You’ve made the case that we should be willing to make some sacrifices on increased traffic, further school overcrowding and reduced open space in the name of reducing the affordability gap in the city. Yet you don’t believe we should make any sacrifices in selling our homes to the highest bidder, even if its to a developer who will tear-down the house, build a $3 million+ home and further increase the affordability gap. Most people I know who support affordable housing, favor increased density AND restrictions in tear-downs. You are a highly visible and vocal exception. Its seems VERY hypocritical.
Until you explain how you reconcile these two positions, its hard to come to any conclusion other than your policy positions are based on what’s most favorable to developers, irrespective of the consequence to the city, affordable or not.
Yeah, that’s the Ted Hess Mahan we’ve seen in action for years — always looking out for the rich guy. Please.
Spare us the rhetoric that even you don’t believe Paul.
@Greg- The mayor’s office is running this show. The BOA is an up or down vote.
@Paul- I look forward to reading Greg’s responses to your post.
Paul, I fully support your right to make sacrifices by selling your home to the lowest bidder. And I would sing your praises from the Aldermanic Chamber if you were to put a permanent deed restriction on your house that will keep it affordable to low to moderate income homebuyers in perpetuity. In fact, I would give you a shout out from the rooftop of City Hall if you would personally buy up small houses all over Newton and invest the money needed to preserve them for middle income homebuyers and place affordability restrictions on all of them.
I do indeed advocate increased density in village centers to promote diversity in our housing stock. As for restricting tear downs, we already have a demolition delay ordinance that slows but does not eliminate tear downs. In my view, this ordinance strikes the appropriate balance between the burden on individual homeowners and the impact on their neighbors. I see nothing hypocritical in that. I do see hypocrisy in your incredible generosity with other people’s money if you are not willing to take all of the steps I outlined above.
In the meantime, unless and until you are willing to step up and use your full name when you call someone else names, I am going to stop feeding the troll who goes by the name “Paul.”
Charlie, I was shocked to read that because you don’t live in Newtonville you “don’t have a dog in the hunt” regarding the viability of the project. As an elected Alderman you had the responsibility to represent every village and all citizens. The Austin Street Parking lot does not belong to Newtonville residents only and I would wager that must people who use it do not live in Newtonville. Many of the businesses are not owned by Newton residents, people who patronage their establishments don’t all live in Newtonville but are supported by people from every Newton Village and beyond. I challenge you to make a point by point argument of why this proposed development should not be approved.
@Gail
Here’s what I believe:
I believe Ted does look out for the little guy, most of the time.
But what I also know, is that this is a guy who wants to be Mayor, and he knows that opposing local developers’ ability to make money in Newton will harm him with some of the more powerful, moneyed interests in the city. You could call it pragmatic politics.
I’m sick and tired of seeing how money is having such distorted influence at all levels– national and local.
Ted is almost always looking out for the little guy. Yet he supports the building of mega-multi-million dollar homes putting Newton further out of reach for many.
Its an odd exception to his consistent record in looking out for those less fortunate.
The reason seems obvious to me. Do you have a different explanation?
@Paul: Since Ted doesn’t know who you are, I don’t see how you can claim to know that he wants to be mayor. He ran for mayor, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s still one of his goals. He may have chosen to run for mayor because he didn’t want to see Mayor Warren unopposed, Maybe he wants to be mayor, maybe he doesn’t. I can’t claim to know. Do you know something that you can share with the rest of us?
I don’t think it’s fair to say that he supports the building of mega multi-million dollar homes, and again, I think you know that you are twisting your words. The issue regarding demolition of houses only to be replaced by much more expensive houses is complex, and I commend Ted for looking at the unintended consequences. He is thinking of the rights of the little guy who wants to get the most money possible out of his biggest asset.
I’m not sure if I’ve ever had a conversation with him about this, or at least if we’ve had a conversation in the past three years, so I’m completely hypothesizing on his thinking here, as are you.
@Ted
“In my view, this ordinance strikes the appropriate balance between the burden on individual homeowners and the impact on their neighbors. I see nothing hypocritical in that.”
The issue, Ted, is about affordable housing. Why isn’t that a consideration for you? Why are you OK with making Newton insanely affordable for almost everyone with teardowns becoming $3 million or $4 million homes? You’re such an advocate for affordable housing– against the wishes of many in Newton. Why are you then OK with developers making Newton even less affordable?
You can pretend that I’m a troll and ignore me. I’ve stated my concerns. They are legitimate. Its pretty cowardly to not answer legitimate questions on your policy positions as a vocal public figure. The hypocrisy question stands, and is waiting for your response.
@Rev Hayward-
In the respect that the entire city belongs to all, yes, of course we all have a stake.
Do I believe that the residents of a particular village have more of a stake in village activities and deserve to have more weight added to their opinions than those from a different part of town have? Yes. I do. Don’t you?
As far as point by point, I’ve already stated my opinion regarding density in my post from 12:53am…when I really should have been sleeping.
Please forgive the typo in your name Rev Haywood. Thank you.
@Ted,
The “demolition delay ordinance” does not protect the majority of 50+ year old houses. Many of them do not even get to the Historic Commission as demo permits are adminstratively given .
If you recall during the Moratorium discussions, you effectively killed it by saying the “Large House Review” would take care of it. Further more you stated that if the Large House Review did not get passed you would be backing the Moratorium to the hilt.
Since then you have backed away from the Large House Review too.
The Moratorium was supposed to go into action for 1 year to jump start buried docket items.
What has ZAP actually achieved this past year?
Okay, I just can’t resist feeding the trolls. This one is on the house, Paul. I guess I am just a sucker for the (anonymous) little guy.
I have always supported nonprofits that buy modestly priced houses in Newton and turn them into affordable housing by restoring them, sometimes adding units, and putting permanent deed restrictions on them to keep them affordable in perpetuity. Sometimes, in order to create this type of “in fill” affordable housing, the existing house has to be demolished and replaced with affordable units because the cost to restore it would be prohibitive and wasteful. Indeed, if they were denied the right to demolish those houses altogether, as you seem to advocate, it would defeat the purpose of creating affordable housing.
Further restricting tear downs will NOT do anything for housing affordability, unless, as I said above, you put affordability restrictions on those houses. Otherwise, all it does is lower homeowners’ property values without adding value to the community–other than preserving houses that in many cases ought to be torn down because they are outdated or in poor repair.
In addition, the US Constitution contains a provision called the “takings” clause, which guarantees that private property will not be taken without just compensation (the Supreme Court just upheld that guarantee in a case involving the National Raisin Reserve). Taking away the right of a homeowner–even a big, bad, avaricious developer–deprives them of the full value of their private property without just compensation, unless of course the city is willing to pay them the difference. And, in fact, we use CDBG, HOME and CPA funds for that very purpose when we award nonprofit developers funds to purchase existing houses from homeowners and construct affordable “in fill” housing in Newton.
I approach all special permits on a case by case basis. When a petitioner comes in with a project that will take a rundown old house and convert it into condos or apartments, even if they are not affordable, I will vote for it if it is a good project because it provides benefits to the city that include additional tax revenue and adding to the diversity of the housing stock. And, by the way, if it includes 4 or more units, it also adds directly to the city’s housing fund through our inclusionary zoning ordinance, which is another thing I have always advocated for. With 40B, the market rate units subsidize the creation of affordable units using private money, and I support that too for that reason and all of the other reasons above.
Finally, I do not take political contributions from developers or their lawyers who come to the Board of Aldermen for special permits because it would be an ethical conflict of interest. Nor did I take contributions from them when I ran for Mayor, because they might have sought to develop a 40B project in Newton, which the Mayor has to weigh in on at the determination of eligibility stage, or bid on city properties that have been surplused, like Austin Street, which require approval from the Mayor. Indeed, Mayor Warren had to return donations from developers who had bid on Austin Street (I don’t know if he got or returned contributions from 40B developers or their lawyers but if he did receive such donations he should have done so).
So, call me a hypocrite that does not answer your questions if you want, but with all due respect you should go on back to your cave and hide. Because you are just plain wrong this time. So, end the suspense, and tell us who you really are so I can stop feeding the trolls.
Simon, I guess this one is also on the house.
My idea for the Large House Review was to implement design standards for houses over a certain size (say, 3500 square feet) ti improve the massing, scale and character of those replacement houses. Some of my co-docketers want to use it to prevent or substantially retard tear downs by adding an onerous process that would affect any increase in size of 25% or more–even if such additions would be by right under our current zoning! Imagine how absurd that result would be if you owned a 1200 square foot ranch house on an acre of land and wanted to expand your kitchen and add a bathroom or bedroom containing just 300 square feet.
If ZAP comes up with a Large House Review that would provide for Site Plan Review under Chapter 40A for truly large houses, then I would support it, because I think that would improve both the diversity and quality of new housing. In addition, I am working on a new definition for two-family houses and attached dwellings that should address most of the worst examples of recent construction that exploit the existing loopholes in the current ordinance. It will be ready for discussion at our July ZAP meeting.
BTW, do you and Paul live in the same cave or would you be willing to use your full name from now on?
Gail, thanks for reminding me. Paul and Simon, I was in the very small minority of aldermen who voted against not one but two special permits to exceed FAR because I believe that the houses were not consistent with, and were in derogation of, the scale, design and size of other houses in the neighborhood. They were both enormous, multi-million dollar mansions that were replacing modest single family homes. Both passed with an overwhelming majority of the aldermen in support.
Ted and Rev Haywood,
When it comes to bringing in affordable housing into the city, is there a place where you draw the line and say “nope, this isn’t good for the city.” ie too big impact on the schools, traffic or parking. So far, I have yet to see that you have one. How about give me a project that you opposed and why? I’m sure you must have one oe two projects you opposed over the years.
@Ted
A nice, thorough response. I better understand your position, and while I don’t fully agree with it, it isn’t the pro-developer approach that it seemed superficially. So I appreciate you clarifying your views. I’d also extend huge plaudits for not accepting donations from those with potential business in front of you. I hope more follow your lead.
I do think you overestimate the incremental value that developers offer homeowners– at times they are looking for less sophisticated sellers, offering cash for a quick sale before it it listed on market. I don’t fault them for that, that’s simply being a good businessman. Even for more sophisticated sellers, the offer of cash can break a tie with similar offers. I personally don’t have issues with tear-downs, as long as trees are protected and houses are built in appropriate proportion to sites. But its worth being clear about the costs and benefits, and the benefits are much more about the expanded tax base from higher home valuations.
Folks here do seem to have continual issues with anonymous posters. I’m not trolling, may use a pointed tone at times, and looking to get answers. I’m not the only person here who thought that Ted was inconsistent on the teardown/density issues, he’s explained and we can move on. If folks want to restrict V14 to actual identication only, go ahead and do so, otherwise the trolling-accusation attacks because I’m anonymous are tiresome.
@Ted,
I some how suspect you know who I am. I regularly attend ZAP meetings – lord knows why as I should be at home putting the kids to bed, but instead I sit down and listen and often come home pretty frustrated!
I know now Simon. I hope you found the information I provided to you by email helpful.
@Ted
Thank you for the information, and for taking time out of your day to help us out. Its really appreciated.
Good question, Tom. Yes. The original Convenant Residences proposal from B’nai B’rith was too big for the location. It is an oddly shaped lot (it looks like an arrow on the assessors database), located behind other apartment and commercial buildings, right next to the T tracks on the Newton/Boston line. The size, shape and number of units in the original proposal (5 stories and 150 units as I recall) was far more than the lot could accommodate, and would have virtually no open space to speak of.
Nevertheless, B’nai B’rith Housing is a highly respected nonprofit developer of affordable housing, and the location was ideal for residential development that included affordable housing, literally steps away from the B Line across the street from Boston College and easy walking distance from Cleveland Circle, the reservoir and plenty of open space, a park, and a playground. So, there were also a lot of positive things to work with. The aldermen (Ald. Baker, really) negotiated with the developer and the Board of Aldermen awarded $1.2M of CPA funds ($300,000 of which were returned to the city based on the net profits from the sale of market rate units) to buy down the number of units to just 56 of which 14 are permanently affordable to low to moderate income residents. I think at the end of the day pretty much everyone agrees it was a pretty good project, which even won an award for its design.
All that said, at some of the neighborhood meetings, there were residents of both Newton and Boston who said a lot of the same ugly and untrue things about the kind of people who would be moving into the affordable units, and had the same complaints about the schools already bursting at the seems, etc., etc., that we are hearing today from some 40B opponents in Newton. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Thanks, Paul (if that is your real name). Feel free to keep posting under your pseudonym. It provides real entertainment value for me and Greg Reibman trying to guess who you are. But please don’t be so judgey next time if I choose not to respond.
I have neighbors who are a case in point. As between two identical bids, they chose the offer that waived the home inspection (I guess we all know what that means). My colleague in the office next to mine does real estate closings all the time, and not having to pay a real estate broker commission or have a home inspection or deal with a buyer who has all kinds of conditions of sale that they want (because they plan to move in and not tear down) means a lot to folks who are using their home to fund their retirement or just need or want to sell quick and easy. So there are intangibles other than just the bottom line which can make a developer’s offer more attractive than a homebuyer who plans to live in the house a long time and wants it perfect before they move in.