Not that this will be controversial or anything but Newton’s Planning Department has just released this document outlining the city’s vision for Newtonville. And on page 15, you will see the Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Austin Street project prepared by RKG Associates.
The Land Use Committee will be discussing both at its meeting this Thursday.
No surprises here, groups have been forming in opposition to this commercial vision of Newtonville for months. No more secrets for Setti W. Most long time residents have been aware of this from the start. I believe that this plan is being shoved down our throats whether we like it or not. For me and many others this is just a nightmare coming much too fast. This massive development plan is the worst thing to happen to the people who live here and is just the beginning of a massive growth precedent for other villages.
Newton Corner was the first destructive development. Any more dense growth will be a repeat.
I am a bit more concerned than I was before, having seen that the linked document is in Comic Sans font.
OK, It’s not, actually. Sometimes I have to take my contacts out to see what I read clearly. Giving up and going to bed now.
@Carry – 😉
Carry – You need to stop by more often.
It’s 159, not 127!! That’s EXISTING parking spots in the Austin St lot. The Tab is wrong!
Bad enough that the Tab let Austin St partners write about affordable housing units so needed by Newton residents when IN FACT we do not know how many (or if any) Newton residents would win the lottery assigning those units. Bad enough to say down-sizing seniors want those units: which of us Seniors can afford those prices???
I am so sick of distorted facts!
Isabelle–I think the document linked here is from the city Planning Department, not the TAB.
Are you saying they are lying about the current number of parking spaces?
Isabelle:
A lot of us are sick of distorted facts. So let’s lay the facts on the table, something your post does not do.
Austin Street is a parking lot that has various uses. Some of it is public parking, some of it is public long term commuter parking, some of it is high school parking, some of it is parking taken up by Goodwill.
The facts are as follows (and if I’m incorrect, I’d ask for the opponents of the building to respond as I’m responding, with a factual post that moves the discussion forward):
Currently 127 spaces are “public spaces”. that includes the public short term parking and the public commuter rail parking. It DOES NOT include the spaces reserved for the high school. Those spaces are not public spaces. It also does not include the Goodwill. It is clear that any development of the lot will neither include high school parking or the Goodwill. It is to some small degree regretable we will lose those, but in my mind neither are big losses (there are alternative donation sites in Newton/Needham/Brookline for Goodwill, and I’m hoping the City can find them an alternative donation site. If I put on my snarky hat, it is probably due to the underutilization of the lot that the City could give away 10 spaces or so to a large donation trailer…) As for the high school parking, there are far closer spaces closer to the high school in street parking, and I say that as someone whose street hosts high school parkers all the time.
So 127 public spaces, which is what the city is referencing in its memo. 159 spaces as a whole, but those missing 32 spaces are not currently public, were not referenced in the RFP, have never been a point for the anti-Austin Street opponents…until the ASP folks decreased the commercials and increased the parking to adjust the project to better fit the communities concerns. Then the conversation shifted to 159 spaces.
So if folks are concerned with parking, the new building delivers the exact same spaces where you or I could park to go shopping, commute, etc.
Those are the facts.
As for the affordable units not being reserved for Newton residents, I tend to think of affordable housing as a scarce resource across the Commonwealth. I’m personally ok with the affordable units not being a Newton only resource. I tend to think they advertise the units as a whole as good for Newton, since the elderly are more likely to use such small units to downsize in my view.
I look forward to any corrections on the post above. Facts are a good thing for us to focus on.
Well said, fig. Points!
fignewtonville, are the parking spots reserved for the high school students available for public use when school is not in session? Are they used by the public on Saturdays and Sundays during the busier retail times?
I agree affordable housing is more important than a collection place for clothing for the same needy people. But let’s keep this in perspective; 75% of the housing being proposed is luxury housing, which I do not deem is as important to the diversity of Newton as helping those in need unless you think Newton needs more wealthy people to fill some kind of quota. JMO.
Yes Fig, well said. TD and you get the extra point. Facts, can we stick to them please! Parking is done.
My main question is why are there so many more public hearings scheduled?
There are many things about the Austin Street proposal that anyone can quibble with and not resort to distraction.
The affordable units are for income up to 80% AMI with rent capped for FY 2015 at $1,424 fir a one BR and $1,628 for two BR. I wish it were for up to 50% AMI instead with lower rents.
At one time the others were for up to 120% AMI and now they are market rate. I do understand though that our local shops anticipate “new customers from residents living right in Newtonville.”
I don’t anticipate many seniors moving in there. Most won’t qualify for affordable housing because of their assets if not their income. The market rate units will have a very high rent so I see singles and young couples either DINKS or with one child moving in. All will be welcome.
Up to 70% of the rent controlled units are allowed to be designated for certain categories, such as living in Newton, working in Newton, over 55, etc. but I would select “working in Newton” and I don’t think that would be a popular choice.
I anticipate local businesses to be accommodated when they said “that a well-planned mitigation package needed to be offered in order to minimize the impact of the project’s construction and temporary loss of parking to what are typically entrepreneurial businesses.”
I don’t want to deal with Austin Street being torn up for months but we need the new infrastructure.
I think it will all work out in the end and several years from now, it will have become just a place some of our neighbor’s live in Newtonville and people will have moved on to disagree over many something elses.
to fig:
As of this year, (the end of the summer), there are no more parking spots reserved for High School students: that’s a fact!
“That’s a fact!” Incomplete facts are distractions and do nothing but annoy. The “why” of this fact is more important that the fact itself. This makes me want to use all caps. In particular it points out that you are a part of a group who will use any tactics, including half-true or bogus “facts,” to keep anything from changing. There just isn’t any credibility in proposing that you and others won’t be able to find a parking space in Newtonville with 127 spaces in the lot.
isabelle, the spaces were reclaimed so the space will be available for the fulfilling the proposal. Using that space for public parking is one of the ways they were able to keep the 127 parking spaces instead of the lower number offerred in the beginning. Without them the proposal couldn’t pass without lowering the number of public parking spaces. Would you rather keep the space designated as high school parking or use it as public parking?
It has been explained as such many time and not just on Austin Street threads but on threads about the school commission and anywhere high school student parking and bus fees were discussed.
I would like to do what most are and not feed trolling, but if these comments are left unchallenged, they just pop up again as “proof” of something by someone. The correction also hopefully keeps others from asking, as on other threads, posters to name “facts” used that are not true, since there are 2 on this thread.
Fun fact: even at the peak of Sunday’s very well-attended Village Day, I had no trouble finding a space in the (free) Austin Street parking lot, with most of Walnut Street off-limits to cars.
@Adam, that the lot is frequently full is not in dispute, at least by those of us who spend a lot of time in Newtonville. The question, at least as I understand it, is to what extent it is acceptable to reduce the number of public spaces. Some people think it is reasonable to reduce it from 159 to 127, while adding retail which would boost demand. Some, including many local businesses, are concerned about that approach. But to show up on a day when many of the roads are blocked off and say “See? it was empty!” is less helpful. We don’t have sympathy for those who try to question climate change by pointing to a warm spell in December right? #Data
Emily, and you mentioned a figure that’s had a trailer parked in some of those spaces for perhaps a few decades or more. Selective facts are indeed fun.
Emily, it is a true disappointment that our elected official on the City Council would, and there is just no way to politely say this, lie to bolster her position. I’ve always respected your opinions and representation but your posting that public parking spaces would be reduced from 159 to 127 has completely changed my thinking. You, of all people, know there were not 159 public parking spaces available. You know the Goodwill Truck is there. Do you park underneath it.
And then to use #data when spouting false data.
Your first statement was sufficient to debunk presumptions made by Adam on Village Day. Why not leave it at that.
You are very wrong in your understanding of the true questions.