Sixteen months after its debut the no-growth group Newton Villages Alliance has finally published the names of its directors on its website.
According the recently amended page, “the Alliance is led by a steering committee of 30 members. The steering committee elects directors who represent the Newton Villages Alliance.”
The 2015 directors are:
- Elaine Rush Arruda (Auburndale)
- John Koot (Newton Highlands)
- Ron Mauri (Newton Highlands)
- Kathleen Kouril Grieser (Newtonville)
- Isabelle Albeck (Waban)
As regular readers here know, I’ve been among those who’ve been calling for the NVA to take this step since May of 2014. I commend them on finally doing so. And now that we’ve seen the list, I’m only left wondering why they felt it was necessary to keep this under wraps for all this time?
A positive step… yet decisions are still made by a steering committee which is 5/6 anonymous?
The NVA website provides its language for its mission:
About Us… Our Mission:
“To preserve the character and scale of Newton’s villages and residential neighborhoods.
To educate and inform residents about matters that might affect the character and scale of our existing neighborhoods and villages.
To ensure that the views of residents are a key part of Newton’s decision-making process.
To support elected officials who share and legislatively affirm our principles and expectations.”
@Greg: Don’t you think your magic marker for labeling them a “no-growth” group is a bit of “yellow journalism”?
@Sallee: Yes I’ve read their printed mission but in practice “no growth” seems to be a fitting description considering that I’m not aware of a signal project they’ve endorsed. But now that we officially know who their directors are perhaps they can clarify their mission. Until then, “no growth” feels more accurate than yellow.
@Adam: Who cares if they are anonymous? Their anonymous views are as valid as our published ones! (Remember, we allow bloggers to use avatars and pseudonyms here, too.) I have noticed that when opinions are not to the liking of certain bloggers, they go for the jugular, and use rabid generalizations, rather than engaging in polite and respectful discussion. I might shy away from such treatment if: 1) I didn’t want to be vilified publically, 2) my business or employment might be compromised if I took a public position, 3) Planning and “development” positions were different from many with whom I had communicated 4) I felt that no one was listening to me. I think what upsets people most about NVA is that this group has energized our City. We all should be looking over our shoulders. We should not assume that we know what the majority wants. We can only know that on Election Day!
Sorry about that Chief, missed it by that much.
@Sallee: they’re under no obligation to run a transparent organization, but it does still limit their credibility, especially when they claim to represent others… sometimes with generous language that suggests they represent all Newtonians. And, despite what their mission says, I would have to agree that their actions have been exclusively no-growth. Still, I’m glad to see that there are 5 people who are willing to engage with the public.
I can tell you this…when I was looking at the letters to Mass Housing on the suitability of a Site Eligibility letter for St. Philip Neri, I found the vast preponderance of the letters (over 200)were opposed to the development AS PROPOSED, and not opposed to the notion of a residential development with a subsidized housing component. They were opposed to the density of the development, the loss of open space, the traffic safety consequences to the neighborhood, environmental issues (e.g.: drainage) that had not been addressed, among other things. Those items seem to be the same reasons articulated by neighbors of many other developments in our City. Are all those neighbors “no-growth” groups? If so, they are all over Newton and the City needs to reconcile the voices of those community members with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Successful implementation of any development plan in Newton will have to be more creative and appealing than what we have seen proposed so far. For one thing, I suggest we drop the smarmy name of “smart growth” even if academics clamp onto it, and think of future change to be encouraged in Newton as “evolutionary” (least disruptive) growth, not “revolutionary” (most disruptive) growth. Adaptation and acceptance will be far easier.
@Sallee: The fact that there are many people in Newton who are concerned about both individual development projects and the overall trend, is not in dispute. But that doesn’t change a different fact, which is that the NVA appears to be opposed to everything. That makes them a “no-growth” group until proven otherwise.
But given that you’ve just told us today that you’re not affiliated with them, I wonder why you’ve elected to act as their spokesperson? Why can’t they defend — and more importantly — define themselves?
I am a keen observer. Not a spokesperson for anyone but myself.
Sallee – From your comments, I assume that you’ve never been attacked by anonymous individuals or groups. Others in the community have experienced these attacks, so I hope that you respect that this is a serious issues for them.
As for the list, I see John Koot, whose name is on the NVA list of directors, is also treasurer for Julia Malakie and Chris Pitts’ campaigns. Both Lynn LeBlanc and Julia Malakie have spoken about wanting more transparency in local government, so can we assume they’ll be transparent about whether these they are or have been in the past a member of NVA? Is Chris Pitts a member of NVA?
NVA has let us know that the names of 5 members while the steering committee of 30 people remain anonymous. That’s not my idea of transparency, especially when they’re backing 3 candidates who may or may not be part of their organization.
@Jane: Public vilification is indeed heinous, which is what may make some reticent to publically self identify. However, if someone bullies, slanders or calumnizes, there are legal remedies to reach even an anonymous villain.
Sallee – Trust me, I know what avenues are available for dealing with behavior that crosses a line. However, some people who are suspected to be members of NVA have been part of the bullying or slandering, so I don’t exactly understand why they continue to remain anonymous. It only leads to distrust of them and what they are all about.
@Jane: Bad behavior here has not been limited to those who might be part of or sympathetic to the NVA. In fact, right after we revised the Village 14 commenting rules on Aug. 10, several anonymous regulars who could best be described as on the other side of the debate quickly vanished.
I’m in complete agreement. It’s time to pull back from saying on a blog the first thing that comes into your mind.
@Jane Frantz
Yikes!! I’ll have to find a new blog
And what’s so great about “growth”?!! As Newton grows stresses are placed on schools, infrastructure , traffic, tree canopy, open space, parking , economic diversity, etc etc. Cancer is a growth and ultimately it kills it’s host. The state of Massachusetts is growing at less than 1% a year. Why must Newton grow at any greater rate ?
@Blueprint when you compare growth in a community to cancer, you really help Jane make her point.
Greg, Blueprintbill is asking a serious question. His delivery might be off to you, but it is a serious question.
Along these lines, there are some big fundamental questions that we never ask ourselves. Why is growth good? Why is lower priced housing good? These questions are not too important to me, since I think government policies designed to create low-priced housing have always been disasters. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. So, the question of whether or not the goal is good is irrelevant to me. Most people (like you) believe that government policies might be able to make an effective change. Let’s assume that you are correct.
I’ll predict your answer to the second question. “Low priced housing is good because it allows more low-income people to live in Newton.” Let’s pretend that I could waive a wand and, zap!, the price of all housing in Newton would drop in half. Magic. You home has lost half of its value but a lower-income person can afford it. Are you now happy?
We could go through many permutations of these questions and their answers. I predict that the pro-tinkering crowd wants the impossible, but just has not articulated it.
Jeffrey, the anti-growth/anti-affordable housing movement in Newton embraces a vision of the Garden City as a private country club where money is the key to get in and where we can close the gate so people who cannot already afford to enter can only look in from the outside. Those who cannot afford a membership need not apply. That is not the Newton I thought I was moving into 18 years ago, and it is not the kind of community I think we ought to be today. It is also very short-sighted, and not in our long-term economic interest.
If you need another reason why we should create more housing–not just affordable housing–the MAPC and others who have studied housing and economic issues for many years all say that economic development in Massachusetts depends upon having places for people to live when they graduate from our expensive private educational institutions like Harvard, BC, BU, Tufts and MIT, to name just a few. Those graduates have no place they can afford to go in the Boston metropolitan area in general and Newton in particular. Maybe that is okay with you, but not with me. I see at as cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. New businesses will not move here and existing businesses will leave (as Trip Advisor did) if they cannot find employees who can afford to live here. It really is that simple.
Indeed, Trip Advisor’s lavish new headquarters in Needham, which will employ over 1500 people, will be close to residential developments with hundreds of units that are the result of collaboration between Needham’s Board of Selectmen and private developers. It will benefit the Town of Needham and the businesses and residents that will relocate there, and put Needham indisputably well over the 10% threshold under Chapter 40B. Moreover, the tax revenue from commercial development in this area, which is almost twice the rate for residential property, will ease the burden on homeowners. Win-win-win. Meanwhile, Newton seems to be sitting on its hands, wanting more commercial growth to add to our revenues but eschewing any residential development that might make more commercial growth not only possible but palatable for the private sector. As Barney Frank used to say, everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die.
Ted.
Let’s agree to disagree. I want Newton to be Newton. You want Newton to be Needham.
I can’t find any press that says that TripAdvisor left Newton for Needham because housing costs are lower in Needham. Can you please point me in the right direction? Here is something I did find (http://www.betaboston.com/), “To attract TripAdvisor to Needham, the town offered about $1.8 million in reduced taxes over 13 years.”
Also, my brother-in-law works for TripAdvisor and lives in Newton. I’ll ask him if their house on the market. My guess is he will stay put.
Let’s stick to “research” in peer-reviewed journals. MAPC has skin in the game. The day they have research that says there is no housing problem in MA is the day that they are out of business!
The link between business and housing is tenuous. You can’t cite studies of MA housing issues and pretend that they offer a prescription of Newton. Newton abuts about several other cities. I work and live in Newton. I am the exception to the rule. Most people who live in Newton do not work here. Where is your office? (Rhetorical question, I just googled the answer!).
I know a lot about affordable housing. My parents grew up in Fall River where there is a lot of affordable housing. I grew up in Erie, PA, in a house that just sold for $130,000. I don’t want to return to either place, and I don’t want Newton to morph into either place. If your assertions are correct, we would expect that Fall River and Erie, with their affordable housing, are hotbeds for new business. Right?
At Ted Hess Mahan,
When I moved here “45 years ago” I came because Newton was a beautiful and bucolic place to live and I was tired of cramped noisy apartment living in Cambridge and Brookline. I came here on a shoestring and lived in a few places that were for me affordable. When I was finally able to purchase a home that I was able to ‘develope’ with years of sweat equity, I found that I wanted to protect that investment. I didn’t want my neighbors installing second ‘accessory’ apartments , cutting down trees and paving over their yards all to gain some economic advantage at the expense of ‘my’ environment.
Now I find, because of policies of political leadership most graphically lead by yourself, the demolition of my kind of house, (and affordable apartment ) to be replaced by mc mansions and the urbanization of our village centers all in attempt to advance an agenda that is compromising this place I found home in.
Well said, Jeff.
I also want Newton to be Newton. To me, it means not losing the modest homes we have. Currently, a house bought for $ 850, 000 is demolished and replaced by a $3Million Mc Mansion. Not the Newton I want in the future!
Really? ‘Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of…?’
Jane, are you really unsure of my involvement with Newton Villages Alliance, or just pretending to be unsure?
I don’t know how I could be more clear. I said so here back in May: http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/05/newton-villages-alliance-makes-its-debut/#comment-47153 , it’s been on the Community page of my website since it launched: http://www.juliamalakie.org/community.html , and it’s on my door hanger. Which it’s now time for me to go distribute more of. I’ll try to catch up on the rest of the thread later. 🙂
Jeffrey, allowing some added density close to transit in our village centers so we can have more diversity in housing will not turn Newton into Erie, PA, or even Brookline or Needham (not that there is anything wrong with any of those either communities). Your house will continue to appreciate in value while the teachers, firefighters, police officers who serve you and your kids (assuming you send them to public school) and the good folks who work in offices, stores and other businesses right here in Newton will not have to sit in traffic clogging the highways and streets every morning and evening to get to and from work from their homes in the ex-urbs, which is probably the only place they can afford. As far as Trip Advisor is concerned, there are 1000 people who have moved or will move into that bulding now, with room for another 500. They all need someplace to live and Needham–not Newton–is forward thinking and progressive enough to have figured that out for itself.
Growth, good or not, will continue for many reasons, a major one being that Newton is between the growing businesses on the 128 corridor and Boston and building and home owners will continue to sell to developers.
Cities who don’t recognize that change is inevitable and plan for it end up with either growth done badly or a severe lack of housing for anyone who is not wealthy, as San Francisco has and is trying to remedy. Planners in SF decided many years ago that the solution to preserving its diverse population and quaint character was strict zoning and a no growth policy but what they actually accomplished was to push out its diverse population who were a big part of its character and to leave behind a bastion for the rich. Closing the gates to the city didn’t keep the character of the city or it’s people in, it drove them out and the character went with them.
Loosing the buzz words, affordable housing, diversity, smart growth, etc., can help change the easily misinterpreted conversation (misinterpreted purposely or out of confusion). When the cheapest small home in a city/suburb sells for ~$500,000, it’s already become a place for the rich and strict zoning and closed gates will just complete the process. The things residents and groups want to preserve will change along with the exhorbitant prices. The variety of people who create the character of our city (and it’s villages), who walk on its streets, shop at its local shops, serve on its city council, make zoning regulations, teach at and staff our schools, bring different ideas and opinions to decision making, etc. will be gone, replaced by a more homogeneous group of residents. The character will change completely.
It’s only by doing what is needed to keep our variety of residents that will preserve our city’s unique character.
Blueprintbill,
You said “I came here on a shoestring and lived in a few places that were for me affordable. When I was finally able to purchase a home that I was able to ‘develope’ with years of sweat equity, I found that I wanted to protect that investment.”
That dream you were pursuing, owning a home in Newton, can no longer be accomplished by starting out living on a shoestring in Newton and then finally buying a house to develop with sweat equity. Your interpretation of preserving your investment means that you don’t want someone like you to move into Newton and live in an accessory apartment while saving for a home. Why is that a good thing?
I also think you would want to sell your home for the best deal you could get by taking advantage of the prices that have skyrocketed in 45 years, regardless of what happens after you leave, just like your neighbors.
Isabelle, in what universe is a $850,00 home modest? A wealthy one.
If you decide to sell your home, do you really intend to sell it only to someone who won’t demolish it and take the lower price you would get or will you take the highest offer and move on like everyone else?
Well said, Marti.
Julia-While it may seem that I spend a lot of time of V14, I don’t and when I do, I rarely read the development threads, which I frankly found to be repetitive about a year ago. When I visited your website, I read only the home page which is not uncommon for visitors to candidate’s websites and the information is not there. Believe it or not, I had no idea you were a member, but when the NVA endorsed you, I assumed you weren’t.
I’m not a fan of NVA for the reasons I’ve stated many times – I don’t like its lack of transparency. Unfortunately, your involvement with an anonymous group – whether you’ve been open about it or not – presents a problem. If you find it acceptable to belong to a group that is so persistently lacking in transparency, I’m not sure anyone would think that you’d be an advocate for transparency in government.
It will NOT be a lower price. Developers do NOT pay a higher price; the only difference is they do not require inspections nor have to wait to get a mortgage.
Why should the house be demolished and why should the neighbors have to put up with a smaller front setback and a huge footprint?
Isabelle, so no higher price, but other bennies that make selling to developers more attractive. Doesn’t change my point though.
The house can be demolished because the owners want to; there is no “should” involved. As I said above, I think you would sell your home with no conditions restricting demolition just like everyone else.
@ Marti,
Developers are tearing our community apart because of too liberal opportunities afforded them by current zoning regulations. Floor Area Ratios ( FAR ), and setbacks that allow developers to build within 7-1/2 feet of a property lines encourage them to build the rash of mc mansions we are seeing. Demolitions that would subject developers to be subject to ‘new lot ‘setbacks and radically reduced FARs would go a long way in gaining some control.
I have seen first hand at ‘Developers Corner’ where I live , ( Fuller St and Coyness Rd ), the loss of affordable housing. Two family homes ripe for preservation ( with sweat equity or not ), at $ 600,000 and $800,000 each, were torn down and replaced with outsized condos starting at$1,100,000 to $1,400,000 each simply because the developer could do it by right. It seems to me his rights fly in the face of the right to allow for economic diversity in our community.
These developers rights are supported by the Ted Hess Mahans and Deb Crossleys hat populate our aldermanic chambers. It’s time for political change that will acknowledge the changes necessary to protect the character of the city.
Bill, what is the character of the City?
Correction,..
“Developers Corner” is at Fuller St and Coyne Rd.
Howard,.. Stop by and see the “character of the city”, or at least what’s it’s coming to.
Blueprintbill,
I don’t think anyone is happy with tear downs being replaced by big structures or the loss of homes that would be lovely if preserved. I’m not. I go by homes all the time that I wish could be kept just the way they are or restored to return them to their prime. But even if we could buy them all and pay for their preservation, eventually they will sell to someone who will want a new home built on the lot. It’s inevitable.
Unfortunately preservation and restoration tacked onto an high prices is more expensive, a lot of the time, than starting over. Plus only a buyer who is looking for a home to restore will take it on. That limits the number of buyers significantly.
You say, “It seems to me that [the developer’s] rights fly in the face of the right to allow for economic diversity in our city.” You refer to developers, but zoning restrictions will affect new homeowners as well. As a homeowner, do you want to give up your rights and only sell to people who sign legal documents requiring them to live in it? Are you not going to sell your older home, if the time comes, to someone who thinks it’s too small or too old or whatever and plans to replace it – for the sake of economic diversity and preservation? I don’t think so.
How are homes sold for $600,000 and $800,000 contributing to economic diversity? The diverse wealthy?
Marti,
A $600,000 two family house works out at $300,000 a unit on my calculator. Seems to me that’s coming close to allowing the kind of economic diversity a school teacher or fireman might qualify at.
I do have a small house ,..1200sf ,.. It’s a sweet gothic revival cottage from 1914 and I cringe to think of what might happen to it when we part. It’s a new house in an old shell but itwould be a prime candidate for the wreckers ball. The only way to preserve it would be to do an addition to up its value taking advantage of the potential FAR allowed. Reduce the allowable FAR and it would survive. Will that happen in the current political climate? I’m a pessimist.
No, Blueprintbill, Deb and I support all property owners’ rights. What you and so many others who want to “snow globe” Newton fail to understand–or refuse to–is that the Constitution protects property rights–yours, mine, everyone’s. The Takings Clause, in particular, guarantees that the guv’mint cannot take away your property rights without providing just compensation. Zoning, which is a 20th century innovation, had to survive numerous challenges before finally being found constitutional in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). It was not until 1978, that the Supreme Court acknowledged the constitutionality of landmarking historic properties, in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), and then only where the restrictions imposed do not prevent a reasonable economic use of the property.
Even though zoning laws and historic preservation efforts may be constitutional, they are still subject to challenge if they are so strict as to constitute a “regulatory taking” without just compensation. Local government must therefore strike a balance between the rights of property owners and the public, so as not to deprive property owners of the value of their property without providing just compensation. We have a solemn obligation to protect and preserve the respective rights of all residents, not just those who are averse to change. Because ‘Merica.
Bill, so you are saying that the government should have the right to dictate who a private home owner can sell their property to?
@Jane, I’m sorry for my erroneous assumption — I really did think you spent enough time on the blog that you couldn’t possibly have missed my affiliation coming up in previous threads! But I, too, don’t manage to read everything here, even though it may seem like I spend a lot of time on the blog, so I can see how someone could miss it.
I do wish more of my NVA colleagues felt it was safe to go public, just as I wish more participants on V14 felt it was safe to use their real names when commenting, but given the tenor of many discussions I can understand why people are reluctant to. I don’t think that position is inconstant with expecting elected officials, and city employees paid with taxpayer dollars, to be forthcoming with information on matters affecting the public.
On this issue of diversity of housing options — it’s not just about price, it’s about size. As I woman I met canvassing this morning said, “you shouldn’t have to choose between a McMansion and an apartment.” And everything is relative. There is a big difference in who can afford an $600,000 or $800,000 house, and who can afford a $1.5 or $2 million house. And a house is an asset, not just an expense. Own a house in Newton for any length of time, and you’ll get your money back when you sell.
Proliferation of condo units in Brookline hasn’t made Brookline less expensive; it’s driving up the cost of living through their recent overrides to accommodate increasing school population. It’s the expense of taxes and more overrides that will reduce diversity by driving out the moderate income people who live in Newton.
And zoning that protects everyone, like tightening FAR requirements, is not a “taking.” Otherwise zoning could never be made more strict, only loosened. A taking is something that deprives someone of any economic use of their property. If you have a house, and FAR requirements are tightened, you’ve still got a house.
By the way, I’ve been hearing so many stories recently about houses sold to developers who presented themselves as not-developers, and real estate agents who lead sellers to think their house won’t be torn down, when they probably will, that I advise anyone who really wants to sell to a family (and that the next time it sells, it’s to a family), put a deed restriction on the house before you sell it, that caps any increase in square footage to a nominal amount. That should weed out the developers and give regular people a chance to make offers.
The problem, Julia, is that under our current zoning, so many of those lovely Victorian homes and other homes that were built before zoning are now “nonconforming.” Even a lot of the post-WWII homes in Newton have been made nonconforming because of FAR and other restrictions. When I chaired Land Use, we had people coming in for special permits to add under 20 square feet to their older homes because they were already at or over the FAR. Why should someone always have to come in for a special permit just to add a bedroom or a kitchen to their home? That just doesn’t seem right.
Again, as I have said so many times before, it is about striking the right balance. We have only six residential zoning districts for 13 villages and many more neighborhoods than that, each with its own unique character. The zoning scheme we have right now is a blunt instrument at best, which I hope to address when we finally get under way with Phase II of zoning reform. It will take a comprehensive review of the as built environment to make sure we “right size” FAR and setbacks for every district. I am currently trying to push through design standards for two-family dwellings (which are on for a public hearing September 16) and garages (to be determined) which should mitigate the overall size and massing of new construction as well as its impact on streetscapes, particularly on small or narrow lots.
As for deed restrictions on size, be my guest, but please also understand that they will affect not only the value of your home but also the number of prospective buyers.
And weed out most buyers. Why would those who pay the very high price to buy a home in Newton, do so knowing there would be restrictions of their property rights determined by those who lived here before them? Why would sellers restrict their buyers to those who will accept deed restrictions now and in the future?
Julia and all of you who want these zoning restrictions, I challenge you to model this behavior by putting these deed restrictions on your own houses.
You also seem to be confused about there being a difference between owners of property. A family who buys a home is no different from a developer in having the right to tear down the house and build a larger one to accommodate their family.
@Marti: Except that a homeowner/family who buys a home and who may eventually tear down the home has a lot more investment into the neighborhood and the community than a developer who just wants to flip the property for a quick profit. When I bought my home, we were not in a historic district. I supported the initiative to create an historic district and am fine with the restrictions on my property.
Amy, and that family might tear it down as soon as they buy it and have a house built before they move in.
The meaningful word in your paragraph is “I,” as in I bought my house, I supported the historic district and I am fine. You are wanting to restrict others’ property rights even though you were able to determine your own.
When Newton first adopted a zoning ordinance in 1923 Mayior Childs said and it remains true to this day”it’s the people who make up the character of the city, not the type of houses they live in”. I am thankful and appreciative of the people that have lived in and contributed to.making Newton a great place to live and to the people who move here and continue the tradition of giving to vibrancy of our city.
Amy, I don’t understand why you and others continue to criticize developers who have every right to buy and sell houses as long as they do so under the prevailing laws. Why don’t you categorize the good people who have the right an opportunity to make a good profit on “their” home that in many cases is critical to their life choices as they age the same as developers. Are they greedy also?
Marti said:
“I don’t think anyone is happy with tear downs being replaced by big structures or the loss of homes that would be lovely if preserved.”
Actually, I have to think that the people who buy those huge homes here in Newton are happy with them. While I cannot understand the appeal of living in an enormous home which is so disproportionate to its lot and neighborhood that it looks like a sore thumb, the fact that there are still willing buyers for these properties suggests to me that they are making someone happy.
What Amy said. I am in a historical district as well. You can’t buy a home in a historical district and tear it down. Even a nondescript 70’s ranch on our street was saved from the wrecking ball because of its location within a historical district. I presume that means we won’t be getting as much value for our homes if/when we go to sell, but at least we all know our neighborhood will stay pretty much the same (unless a 40B is proposed, as 40B trumps even historical districts).
I’d like to see as much concern for the low and moderate income people who are already here in Newton, as there seem to be for low and moderate income people who would like to be here. As Julia said, “It’s the expense of taxes and more overrides that will reduce diversity by driving out the moderate income people who live in Newton.”
We have 3 Title 1 schools in Newton. We have plenty of people not only in need, but desperately in need. Where is the concern for them? With every override, we drive more of them out. So why promote policies that require more overrides?
Emily, I hope you and Amy know the difference between buying a home in a historic district and buying a home that is not, particularly being City Councilors, and that bringing historical districts into the conversation is a distraction to change the subject. (Although the historical significance of “a nondescript 1970’s ranch” is questionable and is an example of the subjective process in Newton.
@Marti — I don’t agree that it is a distraction. in both cases we are talking about a limitation on what one can do with one’s home that may negatively impact resale value.
It seems a little doubtful that you don’t actually see the difference.
@Marti–I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
@Julie -Do you have any evidence to support this statement? “Proliferation of condo units in Brookline hasn’t made Brookline less expensive; it’s driving up the cost of living through their recent overrides to accommodate increasing school population.”
Newton, Wellesley, Lexington, etc. have had several overrides for schools too.
@Lucia, and everyone else, see in particular Sec. 3-1 Drivers of Enrollment Growth in the Brookline B-Space Committee report on school population and capacity expansion, http://www.brooklinema.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2604 but the whole report is worth reading.
The report notes the 2010 federal census found a 21% increase in children under age 9 compared to the previous decade, while overall population only grew 2-3%. Quoting from the report:
and
On page 15 is a projection of Brookline High enrollment increasing from about 1,800 in 2014 to about 2,500 in 2022.
Elsewhere the report discusses the effect of increased enrollment on operating costs, capital costs and property taxes. This page on the town website http://www.brooklinema.gov/1104/Override-Central summarizes the operating override and debt exclusion, both of which passed on May 5, 2015, and has a link to the incremental tax impact, a combined 6.2% increase by 2019. The May 5 debt exclusion was for the immediate need to expand the Devotion School. Accommodating the expansion of Brookline High as the wave reaches high school age would presumably require another one.
Julia – This report doesn’t indicate how many of those new units were conversions of rentals to condominiums, or “more family-friendly” residential housing. Before 1990, Brookline had a huge supply of rental units that no longer exists. Owners converted what had previously been housing for a more transient population to one that is more stable in order to maximize on their investment. Make no mistake, most of these owners weren’t major developers. They were owners of multi-family homes – under the similar pressures as an owner of a small business.
@Jane,
I’m quite intrigued by your comment. Is it possible to ascertain whether those condo conversions are owner occupied versus used as rentals?
@ Jane
If home owners of multi family homes are under the same pressures ( and profits ? ) as an owner of a small business perhaps those properties should be taxed at a commercial real estate tax rate. The ward 2 debate got great mention about the cities need to increase the commercial real estate tax base . Why not start here?
Lisap – It’s a good question. I don’t know the answer and the report doesn’t provide that statistic.
Bill – I’m not an expert on the subject, but I don’t know of any community that taxes a 2/3 family property that is owner occupied at a commercial rate. It would lead to an even greater loss of rental units and that would be a loss to the city.