In Andy Levin’s column today, he writes that the results of the upcoming election will provide clarity on how deep the anti-development sentiment is in the community. He also suggests that, even though the Board of Aldermen is voting on the project after Election Day (and before any potential anti-Austin Street winners are inaugurated), election results could affect the board’s vote.
Interestingly, I think the election of 2015 could have an impact on the Austin Street vote, even though the latter will take place six weeks before the new City Council is sworn in: I don’t think it is a stretch to say that if the incumbents prevail Election Day, a potential swing voter on the board might be much more inclined to say “aye” to the special permit than not. I’m not questioning the integrity of any members of the board, but political winds can be quite forceful.
Is Levin right? If any of their colleagues lose their jobs, will undecided aldermen be more inclined to vote “no” on the Austin Street project? And, in their quasi-judicial role, should they be responding as suggested?
People in N’ville are very upset about the size of the Austin St. development. Especially as the Orr building may be demolished for another proposed apartment site. The mayor should withdraw his support for Austin St. The results of this election may well indicate just how angry people are about a multifloor structure on public land in the heart of the village.
After living in N’ville since 1979 this new push to dramatically alter village life makes me feel ill. I encourage anyone opposed to it to get out and vote in favor of people who want to stop the special permit.
Is it really “anti development sentiment”, or more like”community preservation sentiment “, in the community that might be measured ?
I believe Andy is right, the results will be interpreted as a referendum. That’s too bad because there could be many reasons behind any individual voter’s choices.
For example, I know of at least two voters who’ve told me they like Jake Auchincloss and believe he would bring new energy, a fresh perspective and youth to the board. But they aren’t voting for him because they don’t want their votes to be seen as a vote against Austin Street..
How it is labeled does not really matter. In the end it is about a small group of loud people afraid of the future.
A comment was removed from this thread because the poster has been using multiple pysdonymns, a violation of our terms of use. Please feel free to re-post it using your prior login or, if you choose, your real name.
The focus on Austin Street is over blown. I don’t think this election is about Austin Street.
Regardless of who wins or loses, this election is a coming out party. In the past, all Newton politicians repeated the “affordable housing is good” mantra–with little push back. This election is about a new voice. To me, more serious discourse is an improvement.
@jeffrey: I will accept your theory if Pitts, Malakie and LeBlanc all win. But I don’t think you can claim the revolution has begun if they’re all defeated.
Greg, I apologize for double posting as Ted Hess-Mahan and you. I won’t do it again.
I think in this election there are many reasons to vote for someone. They’re position on the infrastructure, on OPEB on the Budget, on a candidate thinking the city is misprioritizing funds, development, etc….every candidate doesn’t necessarily come down to Austin st. I don’t know of one candidate who is a one issue candidate and the issue is Austin St.
It is rare for anyone to run against incumbents in Newton. I think that alone sends a message of … something.
Sure it sends a message but not sure it’s a “coming out party” unless voters come out.
We will see.
I’m just suggesting that it’s a little soon to be declaring what it means.
@Greg. What I meant was that it is a coming out party for people with a perspective that has been shunted in the past. Almost all Alderman list “Affordable Housing” as a priority in their election websites. The historic lack of diversity on this topic is almost funny.
Will the three people you mention win? Probably not. Most Newton voters (like most voters) hear words like “affordable housing,” and they think it is a good idea. Anything “affordable” sounds good (think “affordable care act”). These challengers are willing to say (or maybe I am willing to say) that a good intention does not make a good idea. I hope this paves the way for a more serious discussion.
Austin Street is a microcosm of bigger problem – the aldermen targeted do not listen to their constituents.
Deb Croasley for eg has reputation of pushing her idealogy and agenda over what her voters elected her for. We have seen it multiple times. Ironically, she never put her agenda out there in open (high density development in centers) during previous election cycles.
The message of fight against incumbents this time is not about Austin Street, but rather having aldermen listen and fight for their constituents.
@Sam S –
On any issue you can possibly imagine, the voice of the citizenry of Newton is never unanimous. When people say “they don’t listen to their constituents” it generally means “don’t listen to my point of view”.
If that point of view is a majority opinion, that’s a problem. If not, well then you’re one of many competing voices.
I’ve been struck by how often the opponents of Austin St and the supporters of the Newton Village Alliance claim to be speaking for the majority view of the citizenry of Newton. That’s certainly possible, and after the upcoming election we’ll know more about that.
In the meantime though, all you can accurately say is that “the targeted aldermen don’t listen to my point of view”.
What I can tell you is that from my experience, those aldermen do indeed listen to their constituents, not just on this single issue but on a wide range of issues that effect us all.
I agree with Jerry Reilly in all but one respect. We do listen to our constituents. But we do not always share their respective points of view. I think Abraham Lincoln said it best:
The vote may, in fact, clear this up. But it also depends on turnout.
A main issue when we talk about “the voice of the people” is that volume does not equal sentiment. The NVA has been very loud and very active. Does that mean they’re the voice of the majority? Possibly, but in the same way that correlation does not equal causation, volume imply popular opinion.
All that said, speaking just for myself, I do believe that Austin Street itself represents something. To me it’s about where this city is and should be headed for the foreseeable future, especially as it relates to the greater Boston area. I do believe that our village centers represent both our biggest asset and our biggest opportunity for growth. I believe they represent the kind of transit-oriented design and varied living environment that encourages great communities.*
I also believe that if we continue to make it unpalatable (and unprofitable) for developers to build this kind of project in our city, we will succeed in sending them to other communities and be left with larger and larger single family homes on small plots of land.
I can’t speak for anyone but me, but I know the city I’d like to see in the future.
* I wrote about this back when I had TheGardenCity.net as well, so it’s nothing new in terms of my way of thinking. I also believe that the air space above our single-story village retail offers a wonderful opportunity for additional commercial and residential growth, but that’s up to the current property owners.
In all of this, if the plan is to increase residential density in the villages, the city must be prepared to foot the bill for the additional students heading for NPS.
The last operating override was largely focused on handling additional teachers and classroom space for the growing student population.
Pressure on city finances will continue to rise as the city pushes ahead with its affordable housing plans. If one adds ‘affordable housing’ but needs overrides to cope with the added students, affordability of the city in general decreases.
The election is not about Austin St but partially about sound development which does not worsen either the livability or affordability of the city and should send new folks in to the city council to really deal with OPEB. From my perspective, projects such as Austin St and Wells Ave have the potential to actually worsen city finances, as the added student impact is never accurately assessed.
There are good intentions re OPEB but no effective plan in sight. OPEB issues have been evident since 2007, so sitting councilors have had 8 years to do something about it.
It seems essential to elect new councilors who will bring fresh energy and insight and balanced, rational judgment to deal with OPEB and the rampant problem with development at every level.
And those who are all for more affordable housing should support much more effective action to prevent tear downs of existing multi-family residences, which have relatively low rent apartments, and replacing them with very expensive condominiums. That would go much further towards ensuring that the city has affordable housing that much of the new development currently supported by the city.
@Geoff: As you should know from your time on the School Committee, the bulk of student growth comes from the natural turnover of housing in our city, not multi-unit development projects.
Greg, as President of the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce, you should know that as more, new multi-unit developments take place, a larger percentage of the student growth will come from these projects versus the natural turnover. This includes, for example, when two family units are turned into 4 family units. There are no students currently living at the Austin Street location, the St. Philip Neri site, the Wells Ave site, the Rowe Street site, the Goddard Village project, etc. etc. etc. Those future students will add new, not turnover, capacity pressure on the school system. JMO.
As Patrick points out, the source of growth has in recent years moved away from “natural turnover.” As noted in the 2014 Enrollment Report, both housing trends and trends in housing patterns of NPS families has shifted:
Thanks Tricia.
I’ve always found it interesting that one person’s over-development is another person’s logical development. In other words, when folks say my aldercritters don’t listen to me, they might be right, they might be listening to your neighbor(s). There are a lot of folks who like the potential for an Austin Street Development, so I feel like I’m being listened to I guess. I’m not exactly thrilled with the Orr Building development, but that is not the issue of the day. In other words, what Jerry said above.
As for what this all means, I think in a few scenarios we will know exactly what it means. If Pitts, Malakie and LeBlanc all win, clearly the over-development wing of Newton voters has a very strong voice, and that voice will need to be heard to some extent, no matter if I disagree with it. If they all lose, the opposite to some extent.
Especially if LeBlanc wins her seat. I’ve paid more attention to her lately and I think it is somewhat unfair of me to just associate her with Austin Street, since I think in a vacuum she’d make a fine aldercritter, even if I disagree with her on development. But if she wins, it will be a very clear victory for NVA. Clear as crystal. They declared victory of their message on the preliminary and I strongly disagreed, but I think it would obviously be a huge thing if she won the real election.
If Jake wins? Others have described that as an upset as well, but I don’t think so at this point. At some point you just have to recognize that he wants it more. That may be unfair as some have pointed out, but his resources and time commitment make him as tough an opponent as any incumbent. Many of my neighbors have met him in person, and they can’t say the same for our incumbents, even if they have been on the phone with them multiple times. There is something to be said for youth and passion and new energy. And Jake has taken a nuanced approach to development. As I’ve said before, I think the NVA folks will be quite surprised when he shows up and votes for some of the projects in town. He isn’t anti-development, he’s for “smarter” development. Big difference. So I’m sure the NVA folks will vote for him as the “other” instead of the incumbent, but can anyone really say that a Jake victory is a huge repudiation of Austin Street? I’ve seen a lot of Jake signs combined with a sign for an incumbent…I’ve seen no Lynne signs the same way.
The NVA made a big fuss about Lynne winning Ward 2. When is a victory not really a victory? When you don’t win the election. I predict Lynne doesn’t win either ward 2 or the election, but ward 2 will be very close. Don’t worry folks, I’ll be back here to eat my words if I’m wrong…
As for Pitts and Malakie, if Ted loses that will mean something too. And I really hope that doesn’t happen, because the Aldercritters need folks like Ted. I might not always agree with him, but he has the courage of his convictions. I happen to really like Julie, she has been a great addition on this blog. But I won’t vote for her over Ted.
If Jake wins and but no one else does, I predict the project moves forward. Not entirely sure of that one.
Jeffrey, I agree with you that folks have been talking about affordable housing in a way that they haven’t done in years in Newton. You attribute that to the NVA and these projects. I attribute that to Engine 6 and the Engine 6 group. You seem to imply that folks in Newton has ignorant, that they vote based on weak associations and not true knowledge, that word association with “affordable” or “affordable housing” is enough to ensure a vote for the incumbent. Weren’t you saying the exact opposite when folks you supported won the preliminary? That these were the true knowledge voters? (or was that Peter or Colleen, I really don’t mean to confuse you so don’t take offense if that wasn’t you). Regardless, I hope that isn’t your argument if your candidates lose. Because I think there is a real movement in Newton brought on by the Engine 6 debacle as well, which is counter to your positions regarding affordable housing. Again, we are a big city, so room for lots of opinions I think. Perhaps there is common ground in there somewhere as well.
The chamber of COMMERCE is about commerce,.. ie business,.. ie real estate development. It’s not about the character of our villages, it’s not about green space and tree canopy, it’s not about schools and the quality of education our kids will be getting. It is pro development, pro density, pro growth, pro urbanism and all those things that derogate the quality of life we signed on for in choosing to live here. Sure this chamber will try and draw some tenuous lines connecting business to quality of life, but bottom lines ( $$$ ) are not measurement for things like fresh air, sunshine, space, ease of movement and general happiness.
@Blueprint. If you believe that, then I presume you are making assumptions based on stereotypes of Chambers without actually knowing anything about the Newton-Needham Chamber.
Of course we care about economic vitality. We wouldn’t be the fastest growing chamber in Massachusetts if we ignored the very qualities that make Newton and Needham so endearing. Central to that are merchants, restaurants and other businesses in our village centers. Village character and the character of Newton’s two shopping districts are central to our core mission. And our village-downtown centric Shop Local/Dine Local/Bank Local program was cited by the Boston Business Journal as central to our growth.
More that 70 non-profits are also members of the Chamber. They belong to the chamber because they recognize our commitment to both the economic and cultural vitality of our communities.
And you couldn’t be more wrong to say we don’t care about green space, tree canopy and the quality of education our kids will be getting. Those are all part of why people chose to live, work and play here. In fact, the chamber board endorsed both debt exclusion overrides for our schools because it recognized that a how important public education is. (And all of the colleges in Newton are members, do you think they’d belong if we didn’t care about education?) We sponsored last week’s Green Expo at Harvest Fair to promote our environment and gave more than one dozen non-profits free exhibition space to promote green initiatives and trees in Newton.
But really you don’t need to take my word for it. We have over 600 member companies in the chamber and had more than 5,000 attendees at our events this year. Ask any of our members if they think the belong to the chamber you’ve assumed we are or the chamber I’ve just described.
@fignewtonville. You are saying a lot, and you might be confusing things I say with things others say. Let me be clear about who I currently support–Jake, LeBlanc, and as of last week Malakie. I am voting for Jake because he listens, he is competent, and he is energetic. I am voting for Lynne because she clearly articulates a density vision that I love. As much as I like Jake, he is, unfortunately, moderate when it comes to density. I am less confident of Malakie, but she is running against Ted. Ted deserves major kudos for outreach and being engaged, but I only agree with Ted 20% of the time. Malakie has an undergrad from MIT and an MBA from Chicago. Given this, she (and Jake) is likely to be smart and equipped to understand something well that most alderman are not equipped to understand well–our pension liability. This is huge. If we don’t understand it now, it will come back to haunt us. Right now, these are the only people I support.
You say that I attribute something to the NVA. I have never attribute anything to the NVA. I might (or might not) have some overlap in what they purportedly believe, but I don’t know anything about the organization (beyond Greg’s rants). I am starting to think that Greg is ranting because they don’t seem to post on V14 and it hurts his business. In this respect, Greg is a quail hunter trying to flush a covey.
I am clear supporter of well-defined and well enforced zoning laws. I can’t say that I am opposed to Austin Street. This might be a surprise. I think the city goofed up in not considering more options for Austin Street, such as all commercial. The city seems to have decided it would be mixed use without feedback. This being said, something needs to built there, and something worse could have been built there than the current proposal. My hope is that the opposition to Austin Street leads to broader opposition to high-density, and broader understanding of the problems from the government promoting high-density. High density is a Newton problem, not just an Austin Street problem.
What I said was very accurate. “Most Newton voters (like most voters) hear words like “affordable housing,” and they think it is a good idea.” I stand by that. “Most” is not everybody. “Most” of the people don’t always vote. I am not saying that people won’t learn. Some of these people might switch sides, but learning is tough in an environment where supporters of low density sometimes have their characters’ denigrated. You can support low density and still be a nice, loving, caring person. Once we realize this, we might have better discussions.
Jeffrey, by no means do I denigrate your character, nor do I buy into any argument that folks that don’t support affordable housing in Newton are not nice, loving/caring people. We just choose to have a different view of the best way to move Newton forward.
@Jeffrey, might I mention that, whether or not most Newton voters think that affordable housing is a good idea, it is, in fact, the law. Take a look at the Conciliation Agreement sign last April by the Mayor to see what is required of this City in terms of affordable housing units. And, might I mention that one can support higher density in Village centers and still appreciate living in the Garden City?
@fignewtonville. To be clear, I am not accusing anyone of denigrating anyone’s character. I enjoy the fact that you have always been civil. I am just saying that sometimes you see accusations or near accusations being thrown out. I don’t have to give examples–everyone knows what I am saying. I agree that most of us want the same outcome.
@NativeNewtonian. Unless I am missing something, affordable housing per se is not the law. There are laws such as 40b that trump local zoning with the goal of promoting “affordable housing,” based on state definitions of “affordable housing.” Austin Street did not have to be a 40B. Also, 40B aside Newton has zoning laws that can written to promote more or less density and more or less green space. Can someone support support higher density and still appreciate living in the Garden City? Of course. I don’t think I implied anything to contrary.
You can support low density and still be a nice, loving, caring person. Once we realize this, we might have better discussions.
Read more: How will election results affect Austin Street? | Village 14 City of Newton, Massachusetts http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/10/how-will-election-results-affect-austin-street/#ixzz3pQTriger
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook
Sorry, I clicked to soon. Merely wanted to point out that there are many generalizations and muisconceptions going around. I never thought that nice, loving and caring people could still support low density.
Regarding affordable housing being the law, ..it is. The city must step up. It hasn’t a choice.
I give up. Clearly timely clicking, proofreading, and making sense have alluded me after a full week of work. Just disregard my prior comments which make zero sense. Sorry…..enjoy the weekend, V14.
@Jeffrey, last night the Fair Housing Committee sponsored a presentation on recent developments concerning disparate treatment and the duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). Briefly, the purpose of the Fair Housing Act is to end segregation in housing. A community can be found to have violated the FHA based on the discriminatory effect of a practice or policy, even if it is not motivated by a discriminatory intent. Such a practice or policy may still be lawful, but only if it is necessary to achieve nondiscriminatory interests that cannot be served by another practice or policy that has a less discriminatory effect.
New HUD regulations define AFFH to mean “taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.” As a recipient of federal CDBG and HOME funds, Newton has an obligation to fulfill its AFFH duty.
HUD defines equitable land use planning as “zoning, land use regulation, master planning, and other land use planning that, at a mimimum, furthers the purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Fair Housing Act and are intended to achieve additional objectives for expanding housing choice.”
There are a number of zoning code barriers to AFFH in Newton that were identified in the presentation, e.g., multi-family housing is allowed only by special permit, minimum lot area requirements, limitations on by-right development of accessory units, no provisions for adaptive reuse of non-residential strucutres; a lack of transit oriented development provisions, no affordable housing trust fund; and no Chapter 40R (smart growth) overlay districts.
A map of racial concentration show that most minorities live in just five cities across the state, and mainly in a handful of neighborhoods in Boston. If you look at median household income, you can see that the lower income areas are where most people of color live. Higher income areas, like Newton, have fwer people of color and many barriers to racial integration, including the lack of affordable housing opportunities. So, in order to achieve the goals of the FHA and fulfill its AFFH obligation, Newton has to create more housing opportunities for low to moderate income households.
I hope that helps.
A surprise is coming !!!!
Ted, I can’t argue or agree with your description of a law. From your description, the law’s reasoning sounds darn convoluted. Is there a study that shows that cities like Newton become more diverse in an appreciable way because of these laws? Good intentions don’t make good policies.
@Jerry and Ted – Sorry I was travelling and could not login to respond.
My comments on Deb Crossley were based on couple of factors 1. In a big community meeting (Engine 6 I think), it was clear majority of constituents had strong concerns. She was asked directly, what she would do based on this clear voice of the village. Her response was something like – I heard you, but I will not represent this with mayor. IT was Yates and Rice who essentially, shared the citizens concerns w mayor.
2. I have not seen Crossley at the Waban Fair or Highland Day. I have seen others, but not Crossley. She has never knocked my door of that of others around me.
I understand and even respect her passion for affordable and high density housing. However, she should continue that in capacity of an activist. As my representative, I expect her to advocate my and others voice, even when it does not align with her ideology.
I hope she had shouted her platform of high density housing in her Tab introduction, instead of hiding it in middle.
Finally – Jerry – who in this community listens to the majority – For longest time mayor has claimed he has listened to the community and they support Austin Street. He did not have the courage to put it on the ballot. So even his claim is just factious political claim.
The only data we have is 2/3rd of Newton Voters dont want to surplus land without their explicit Ok. <– Who has heard this voice?
@Sam S, Ald. Crossley was trying to follow the law. The chronically homeless people who would have been eligible to live in Engine 6 if it had been converted to 9 affordable units are protected under various state and federal civil rights laws, fair housing laws and laws protecting people with disabilities. In a joint statement which is directly on point, the Department of Justice and HUD say the following:
People with physical disabilities, as well as people recovering from substance or alcohol addiction are protected by these laws (provided that they are not breaking the law). The definition of chronically homeless includes such people. Neighbors’ opposition to such people living in their neighborhood may not form the basis of decisions whether to use federal funds for affordable housing without possibly violating these laws, which is what the Engine 6 dispute was all about. Fortunately, the city and the Engine 6 supporters have entered into a settlement agreement which requires that the city create 9-12 units of affordable housing for chronically homeless people with disabilities within 5 years. Sooner or later, this must happen regardless of neighborhood opposition, or the DOJ may bring a lawsuit against the city and Newton could lose its federal funds for affordable housing and/or be fined for violating the Fair Housing Act.
The issue was on mayor’s table to write a letter of support, and Deb Crossley was unwilling to voice community’s feedback to the mayor. This was all that was asked of her, nothing more.
Honestly, I hope we have representatives who give voice to their residents feedback instead of hiding behind some laws.