Village 14 received the following press release from the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce:
————————————————————————————————————————————–
Chamber board votes in support of proposed mixed use project at 28 Austin Street
The Newton-Needham Chamber’s Board of Directors voted unanimously to support the following resolution at its Oct. 21, 2105 meeting.
The Board of Directors of the Newton-Needham Chamber believes that the proposed mixed-use development at 28 Austin Street would have a positive impact on the City of Newton’s and the Village of Newtonville’s economic and cultural vitality.
The board appreciates the compromises that have been made in response to community concerns since the original proposal; including the decision to scale back the number of rental units, square footage available for retail; and building height. The board especially appreciates that the completed project will provide 127 at-grade public parking spaces (the same number as presently exists) with additional underground parking for the new building’s tenants.
As proposed, the project would bring new customers and energy into Newtonville and provide needed rental units, which are especially needed for millennial and seniors who desire to move or remain in Newton.
The Chamber Board urges Newton’s Board of Aldermen to approve the special permit.
In addition, the Chamber is committed to actively supporting Newtonville’s merchants, restaurants and other businesses during construction by organizing a special Shop Local Newtonville campaign and holding events at village businesses.
Given that Greg and Josephine McNeil are on the board, am I not surprised at this decision.
That being said, this decision seems to cross an important line the big way. The Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce files tax returns as a 501(c)(6). Non-profit tax law is very complicated. I am no expert, but I know more than the average person. When a 501(c) publicly advocates for specific legislation, the IRS calls this lobbying, and the rules are very different. So, advocating for affordable housing is not lobbying, but urging alderman to approve a special permit is. My understanding is, at worst, a 501 (c) who lobbies, my may be required to reclassify the its tax-status. This is a big deal. At best, the League’s tax returns be more complicated.
Of course, I am not non-profit tax lawyer. Given the potential far-reaching implications, I hope they sought a legal opinion beforehand and I am wrong.
@Jeffery: For the record, I am not a member of the Chamber’s Board. I’m an employee. You can find a list of chamber directors here.
Also the chamber has taken positions on legislative matters before Newton, Needham and the state for decades (if not longer) as do other chambers here and nationwide. Our chamber does not endorse candidates. I’m confident we are well within the 501 c (6) requirements.
Sorry, for the typos. I wish there was a way to res-submit.
Great, Greg.
Jeffrey, what is your problem with Josephine McNeil she has labored hard to create housing for the very least of those in our society. Battered women and their families helping them to a better way of life. Families whose children have been blessed to share our great educational system that your children also enjoy. Josephine McNeil is a amazing advocate for the disadvantage and does not deserve your unfounded, sleezy accusation.
Questions about this endorsement:
1. How does the Chamber’s endorsement fit with the letter from 34 Newtonville businesses urging the Alders to vote No on the special permit? Those businesses appear to be nearly all of them not named “Star Market.” You can see the letter here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_CQfHrzECUFT3lCUS1iWVdvTlNDTTVfVFV6akYzWWVXeEo4/view
2. How do apartments that start at $2600/month and go up to $4000/month serve the disadvantaged, whether those disadvantaged people have kids or not, are twenty-somethings looking to start living in Newton, or are aging seniors? Affordable rental housing in Newton would be good – Austin St. will provide zero such apartments.
3. How does the Board feel about the fact that preserving the 127 parking spaces was done by making them too narrow, so that they won’t be useable? (Not concerned, it seems, as they cite that as a reason to support it)
@Matthew: The Chamber Board has been following and discussing Austin Street for years but declined to support it until the interim parking plan was finalized because of its importance to maintaining village vitality.
In fact, an early draft of the resolution the Chamber Directors ultimately approved expressed the same sort of reservations about parking during construction that those 34 businesses expressed. (As I’m sure you know the 34 businesses who signed that letter did so before the interim plan was available.)
The subsequent identification of 70 “new” spaces inside Newtonville was very persuasive and the directors agreed to remove a clause expressing concerns about interim parking after scrutinizing the plan released last week.
@Matthew: Also: I’m not sure how you can suggest that Austin Street has “zero apartments” that are classified as “affordable.” You’ll have to explain that before I can respond.
I can say, however, that while the creation of affordable housing is a goal we should all share, Newton also needs market rate housing for seniors and millennials.
I’ve been reading comments such as yours both here and elsewhere saying “But no one can afford them!” Dislike developers if you choose but give them credit for understanding market demand.
Also, let’s acknowledge that in the current innovation economy, many millennials are earning excellent competitive salaries but aren’t necessarily ready to purchase a condo or desire a house with a garage and a yard because they don’t know yet where their careers and lives will intimately take them.
Hi Matthew:
Just another point of view on your 3 issues you raise:
1) Not to downplay the 34 businesses, but I believe that includes folks from both sides of the Pike, so technically that is about 1/3 of all business owners signed the letter. I’ve talked to a few, there seems to be a huge concern about parking during construction. I agree that is a huge issue. There is much less of a concern regarding post-construction issues. The businesses are rightly concerned about the hit they will take during a year long construction. But it wasn’t everyone but Star Market.
2) I think you are ignoring the affordable rental units, so there is certainly not zero such apartments as you state. The affordable units will rent at far lower rental rates. Are we sure those are the rental rates for the apartments as well? Regardless, there are 16 affordable units (maybe more when Mike Stair gets involved 😉 ), so 16 families at least will benefit from the project.
3) Regarding the narrowing of spaces, I’m not yet sold on whether the spaces are “too narrow”. Clearly they have been decreased in width by 6 inches I think. I wonder how that compares to the spaces in the back lots on Bram Way? Or the spaces in Star Market. I think the comparison would be helpful.
But I do think your overall point is a good one, in that I hope the Chamber does everything it can to help Newtonville Merchants if the project moves forward. I know I’ll be shopping and eating as much as possible in Newtonville during those months.
And Jeffrey, from my limited work with non-profits, the issue is endorsement of candidates or direct lobbying. Issuing letters of support for projects doesn’t follow either, and there are safe harbors either way. That one felt a little like concern trolling on your part, but pretty sure they are in the clear.
I’ll also note that the Chamber’s support and the League of Women Votes support shouldn’t be seen as positive steps forward for the project. Does the Tab support it?
Greg, when does the Tab usually endorse candidates for office too? Does that happen anymore? Andy?
I tend to give some weight to the newspaper endorsements, since they follow these items more closely than I do. At least I hope they do.
I agree with your last comment Greg, but $4000 for an apartment does feel steep to me. I wonder if that is sustainable in this market. That is basically Boston rents, no?
But yes, I lay that decision on the feet of the developer, and the risk is his/hers as well.
@Greg: I’m not sure what you’re confused about. The info that has been made public is that the 17 “affordable” apartments are $2600/month. That may be “affordable” to someone earning Newton’s median household income of $104,887 (www.newtonma.gov/gov/planning/demog/income.asp), but it’s not going to strike anyone else as affordable. Certainly not to anyone who is disadvantaged. Or even to someone making $50,000 per year. That smells like zero affordable apartments to me.
@fignewtonville, do you think that is an “affordable” price for an apartment?
As to a need for market-rate housing: sure, but we have that. Here’s craigslist: https://boston.craigslist.org/search/bmw/aap?query=newton
We could have more apartments that are expensive, but before we discuss that… Do we need to sell – forgive me, lease for 198 years – City-owned property to politically-connected developers, so they can make scads of money off of luxury apartments?
I’m not saying that no one can afford these apartments. People with high salaries can (like the millennials you point to, for whom there are plenty of expensive apartments). People with large savings accounts and retirement accounts can. People with trust funds can. And all of that is great. We have expensive rentals in Newton already.
But teachers or firefighters cannot afford these apartments. So please stop being disingenuous and pretending this is affordable housing for anyone middle-class, let alone disadvantaged.
@Matthew: I’m using the affording housing formula as defined under chapter 40B, which is of course, the same formula that is driving all of the affordable housing debate here in Newton. Yes that’s still too high for many but, again, I don’t know how you can say there isn’t demand: I’ve yet to meet any property onwer who says they can’t find anyone to rent their [40B formula defined] “affordable” housing units.
As for the debate about the terms of the deal, I will defer to Rob Gifford who in my mind has provided the most authoritative analysis of the proposed terms.
As for teachers and fire fighters, yes we still need more modestly priced housing to accommodate them as well but I don’t see how that need justifies not moving forward on this project, but does it reinforce the need to build more after this.
A few notes. First, the 8.5 foot wide parking spaces are normal as a nationwide average. So it’s not as if they’re getting tiny. It’s typical for a parking lot.
As for the pricing on the apartments, the developer can set any price they want, but the market will determine the final rents. Want to say $4000/ months? Sure, you can say that, it doesn’t mean you’ll find someone to take it. The market will determine that.
@fignewtonville: first, in my previous comment (1:36pm) I didn’t see your 1:15pm comment about $4000 rents being high. Sorry I missed it, I do agree on that. (@Greg? Your response?) But, I’m not willing to wash my hands of this, and say it’s up to the developer. Shame on us all if we allow this to proceed.
Next: that’s a fair point on the ratio of businesses signing that letter to those not. I haven’t counted up all the Newtonville-area businesses.
But: assuming that is signed by 1/3 of them – why is the Chamber endorsing this project? If 1/3 of my constituents and potential constituents, who I claim to represent and advocate for, said “this is going to put us out of business”, I would listen. It’s puzzling that this Chamber has not.
Finally, regarding parking spaces: if they’re too small (under what the regulations say), and too small to use without all of us smashing our doors and limbo-ing to get in or out of a car – doesn’t it seem like the developers are trying to dupe us? After hearing from them and the City and other proponents of this that we don’t need all that parking, they conceded that we do – but apparently, we can only use it if we all switch to Smart cars and Fiat 500s.
Excuse me, I have to go search craigslist for a Yugo now.
As explained in one of my earlier comments the letter from the businesses was signed before the city identified 70 new interim spaces inside Newtonville. The chamber directors also shared that same worry at the time. It wasn’t until after the 70 new spaces were identified that the chamber directors endorsed the project.
Also as noted in the statement, the Chamber is committed to supporting Newtonville businesses throughout the process.
There are not 70 interim parking spaces . See posts above re construction bonding!
Blueprintbill:
Your construction bonding post doesn’t make sense to me. It is a large site, and construction projects happen in Boston all the time with parking within a few feet away. Look at any of the high rises in Boston going up on much smaller sites. Bonding won’t be a problem in my view.
Matthew, can you provide where you got the $2400 rental price for the affordable units? I’ve been unable to find it. Thanks.
Fignewtonville,
This fiction about 70 interim parking spaces is nothing but pie in the sky wishful thinking ( lying ?).
This site is not all that large. Access would have to be off Bramway and where do think any construction staging will have to be located ? Austin Street ? Where will the construction trailers be located ?
Show me an interim site plan and a construction bond before promoting this nonsense!
To clarify, is ASP using the Newton median income or AMI? There is a huge difference. 40B uses AMI.
Perhaps someone from Austin Street Partners can clarify if they are reading. What are the rents for the affordable units estimated to be?
For the record, the answer SHOULD be the same as 40B in my opinion.
Blueprintbill:
I don’t work for the project so I don’t have access to any of that, but I’m sure it will be filed with the special permit. I’m willing to give the city the benefit of the doubt until I know something otherwise. Since it is clear you DON’T know something otherwise to actually prove this won’t work, this conversation has a Waiting for Godot quality to it.
You don’t know for sure it won’t work, and I don’t know for sure it will. We both disagree with the other. The proof will be in the plans. I put my faith in the city and the developer not to be incompetent.
So until a new FACT is in the public sphere, not sure there is much else to talk about. Cheers!
The Chamber has been duped . Who lead them on ?
I am confused by the comments about the 17 affordable units, particularly their rent being $2500/month.
Maximum allowable rents for 2015 for deed restricted apartments are $1,307 for a one-BR and $1,568 for a two-BR including utilities and at the ASP project it includes 1 parking space.
Rent can be no more than 30% of income to qualify for Affordable Housing. At 80% AMI that includes Newton a qualifying 1 person maximum income is $48,800, 2 person is $55,800. So while I would be happier with rents established at a lower percentage of AMI, they are still affordable to many.
Market rate units are currently projected to be $2,370-$2,820 for a one-BR and $2,950-$3,450 for a two-BR, including one parking space or if separated rent could be $150 less without a parking space. Of course the project is projected to start construction in spring, 2017, unless the Austin Street infrastructure improvement can finish earlier, then they would like to start n fall, 2016 so their rent will depend on the market then.
@fignewtonville, I must correct myself: $2600 is the anticipated market rate for the 1-bedroom apartments (which I hope folks will agree is great if you’re raking it in, but absurd otherwise).
The maximum cost (ie, what they will cost) “affordable” units are, for 2015, $1,307 for a one bedroom unit, and $1,568 for a two bedroom unit. So, sorry I had my info mixed.
BUT: those “affordable” rates are already higher than rentals that currently exist in Newton, and in that neighborhood. AND those “affordable” units are not available to City teachers or employees, because they earn too much money and so are not eligible. So yes, it’s great to get those (relatively) “affordable” units – but at what cost to the City?
We give up a 3+ acre parcel, for 198 years, for a total cost of about $2 million dollars. That’s about $10,000 per year. Per year! Absurd.
We overcrowd our schools and our streets. And the residents will not have enough parking under the building.
Rob Gifford’s analysis is flawed because he accepts ASP’s biased projections of $40K annual surplus to City, and $1,84M in additional shopping and retail spending (I assume he and ASP mean over the 198 years, which would be amusing if it weren’t ridiculous to think anyone can project that). The $40K per year will evaporate when, as with all other large apartment buildings in Newton, far more kids wind up in those apartments than the developers projected. Hm, I wonder why they keep coming out too low on those projections…?
AND even if that were accurate, and the City gets (averaged over 200 years) $50,000 per year in payments: that’s crazy cheap for that big a parcel.
We take on tremendous construction and displacement of current businesses (sorry @Greg, a Shop Local campaign isn’t going keep them solvent! Especially with people unable to park nearby to shop), and we do it to enrich politically connected developers to whom Mayor Warren owes favors.
This deal stinks. Vote it down.
Chuck, regardless of the national average you keep posting, Newton requires angled parking in a lot of more than 5 parking spaces to be 9′ X 19′. It also outlines turning radius, width of lanes, etc. So I guess that is one more waiver they will need. In addition the handicapped spaces are narrow and inaccessible from Bram Way. These things have to be outlined correctly before the project is voted on.
Fignewtonville,
OK I’ll rely on my past professional construction experience
, you can rely on the mayors office.
The market rate apartments, staying at the rule of 30% of income going to rent, are affordable to incomes of $100,000 to $130,000 as projected. Those renting these apartments are not restricted to 30% so some may fudge upward.
These can be rented by many teachers and firefighters, to use the careers posted above, and particularly 2 income families. I think they are on board with many of the jobs in the area. They are still too expensive, in my opinion, for seniors with only SS and retirement income so I think “housing for seniors” should be dropped as a benefit of this project.
These apartments are for the 17 lucky lottery winners which is great and for small one and two income families with decent jobs in the area, also great.
I also think that ASP has stated that up to 70% of them will be Newton folks in those affordable units, not sure how they can say that to be honest.
Blueprintbill, since I have no way of verifying your experience on projects of this size and scope, or when that experience is from, again, we’ll need to wait and see. I’ll be happy to eat my words if I’m wrong.
Matthew: In case I didn’t welcome you to the blog, welcome. Glad to have a new voice posting. I appreciate you posting regarding the affordability of the units, and that was an important clarification for the discussion. Not everyone posts again to clarify, so just wanted to say thank you for that.
I think a lot in your post has been covered before by folks who support the project, and on some items we are just going to have to disagree. I think your ground lease argument ($10,000 a year) misunderstands the purpose of the ground lease, and your analysis of what the city gets back ignores the value of the parking lot itself. You are 100% correct that the construction period will be difficult and needs to be addressed. But the rest of it is guesswork, counting on the worst case scenario as a reason not to do the project . You can say the same thing about my view of the project as an economic plus, but there are a list of positives and negatives for the project. All I ask is that everyone is realistic about both, and then folks can vote with the facts.
And on that note, I will say that if Lynne wins next week, I think that will be a pretty strong indication that your views on the project have prevailed and that public opinion has turned against the project.
And regardless of who wins, it would be great if you keep posting, since the more voices questioning things the better project and Newtonville will be (or perhaps the parking lot will be better if Lynne wins I guess, not sure what the outcome for the lot will be if that happens…).
Howard, you WERE just on my list of people to vote for on the Charter Commission. Wow. Go back and read what I said. I said, “Given that Greg and Josephine McNeil are on the board, am I not surprised at this decision.” I did not say anything disparaging or “sleezy” about anyone. In fact, I am not even “accusing” anyone of anything. I know that Josephine advocates for affordable housing, and I am not surprised that a that board she is on would advocate a pro-affordable housing stance. You could have made the exact same statement. I respect that she has her opinion and I respect that Greg has his opinion. You should be embarrassed for name calling.
Jeffrey if I misinterpreted your comment I apologize, I have great respect for the devoted work of Josephine McNeil and mistook your comment as s criticism of her work.
OK. Howard. You are back on my Charter Commission list. In general, I don’t support government intervention in the housing market, but I still appreciate individuals who try to make life better.
Jeff, I tend to agree with you because the government has not done a good job with public housing I wish it could be affordable for private developers to create affordable housing that integrated people from all economic backgrounds and breeds good, productive citizens. Thank you for reconsidering your vote.