In her latest TAB column, Newton Villages Alliance leader Kathleen Kouril Grieser lists the six aldermen candidates you should vote for on Nov. 3 if you’re against importing “poor people” into Newton.
Kouril Grieser: How to stop Newton from trying to ‘import poor people’
by Greg Reibman | Oct 25, 2015 | Newton | 106 comments
Riebman
Wow talk trying to twist an argument by pulling two words “poor people” out of context !!!
This takes the cake !!!
Soon we will see how she’s a racist,.. Hates native Americans,.. Wants all Asians to return to China,.. Let’s see now , how can we twist this to marginalize her ideas ? Reverend Heywood ? Jerry Rielly ? Pile on!!!
Correction: 3 words, not 2: “import poor people”.
Bill, how was the quote taken out of context? What did she really mean?
It’s time to find something that’s not so disgusting,.. Let’s see now,.. The Patriots have a kick off at 1:00 ,..
It was a misdirected, dehumanizing, revealing remark.
Just Pile On!!! Don’t discuss the article.
That sentence is at the heart of the article, not the patriots game.
She imputed a cynicism to others which revealed her own.
Quote in context:
To me, it’s pretty clear that she’s talking about the often overlooked fact that a lot of new development – whether purely market-rate (which now almost exclusively means high-end) or market-rate + affordable – comes at the expense of the usually older, more affordable housing, and it’s residents, who were there before. It seems she’s trying to get at the displacement of current, often less-affluent residents that always happens with “urban renewal”, even in suburbia. A very unfortunate choice of words, but whether it is “revealing” of anything deeper is something for the author to address.
Kouril Grieser is welcome to clarify, justify (or I would hope) apologize for her word choice here at any time.
@Greg- There ya go again. Instead of directly rebutting the contents, you throw mud in her face for using ‘poor’ instead of ‘low income’, which I agree is a more widely accepted term.
Many of the points she’s making are very valid. Give her the respect to discuss them, instead of reflexively jumping at a shallow and cheap headline.
You’re better than that. Prove it.
In all seriousness, am I the only one who’s had these constant experiences in Newton? For example, in 2003, in local Bank, two men in their 70’s standing next to me who had obviously known each other since High School.
Gent #1 “Getting tough to pay these property taxes. Just got my bill. Did they have an override or rate hike or something? It’s gone way up. Not sure I can afford to live here.”
Gent #2(Somewhat taken aback by his friend’s frankness in public): “Really, Don’t you have savings? Retirement account you could drain?”
As it went on, it became apparent that it was a discussion between a have and have not.
The developers can promote their projects with flowerly phrases about doing it for the children and helping the elderly but it’s just a cloak for their profit motives. Which is fine, all for that, but please, stop pretending it’s anything more. We have to start somewhere to help others but displacing the most vulnerable citizens among us already here is not the best starting point.
Wow. The attitude, the twisting of facts, the perverse conclusions. This is priceless.
Hmmm – my head’s still spinning from reading that piece. It’s hard to know where to start since so many issues were thrown together, put in a blender, and then label’ed “helping the less fortunate”.
I think we can all agree that Newton housing in general is extremely expensive. I think we can also all agree that whatever market rate new development happens will tend towards the more expensive end of this already expensive market.
So the pertinent questions really are:
* What are the long term effects on house prices if we make any additional housing nearly impossible to build. The law of supply and demand would say that it can only drive prices even higher.
* Given the current high prices of all real estate in Newton, where will any additional housing come from that could possible house people of limited means.
* If the answer is there will be no additional housing built for any but the wealthiest, then we are clearly setting ourselves on a trajectory to become an enclave of only the wealthiest citizens.
My personal experience is that most of the folks that I know in Newton who are of limited financial means are living in either Newton Housing apartments or subsidized 40B units.
Kathleen Kouril Grieser does a good job of describing the challenges of the most vulnerable of our citizens, but her prescriptions for development plans does absolutely nothing to help.
I know it’s a bit harsh, but there’s something reminiscent of the ‘magical thinking’ involved in the fight over supply-side economics a while back in the federal government. In both cases proponents had a desired end goal – lower taxes (supply-side economics), stop new development (Newton Village Alliance). In both cases proponents then seem to pull a counter-intuitive imaginary benefit out of thin air with no credible evidence to support it – lower taxes will fix the deficit (supply-side economics), stopping new development that includes affordable housing will help solve our housing problems for the most vulnerable (Newton Village Alliance).
The most basic question I’d like to ask the Newton Village Alliance is this. Let’s assume your agenda completely takes hold. You get everything you are advocating for. Nearly all new development stops in Newton. No knock-downs, no 40 B’s, no expansion from single family to multi-units, etc. Now explain how that will improve the housing options for the less well off in this city.
Thanks for pointing it out. I was out of the country last week and missed the Tab. I am going to forward the link. The Tab is fortunate to get content of this quality.
Greg, if you think that 1/8 people living in Newton on under $25K a year is not enough, please tell us the number you seek. 1/4, 1/2, 100%? Maybe we can have a poll.
@Jerry writes: “My personal experience is that most of the folks that I know in Newton who are of limited financial means are living in either Newton Housing apartments or subsidized 40B units.”
My personal experience is different, perhaps because I live north of the pike. My neighbors rent a 3 bedroom for $2100 a month. Other neighbors rent a 1 bedroom for $750 and $1100 a month, and 2 bedrooms for $1200 and $1400 a month. These are not subsidized, these are not NHA units, these are moderately priced rental apartments in houses built many decades ago. They would like to stay in Newton, and they do not see how this new construction will help them–they do worry about it giving incentive to their landlords to raise their rent though.
I’m not sure that new construction apartments that rent for rates higher than existing apartments will have that great of an impact on pricing. That’s an argument that comes up in “gentrifying” neighborhoods, but there tend to be other factors at play there. Usually that’s a rise that happens over time and also comes with changes in the retail and home ownership environments. I’m not sure I agree that this single construction project will have that same impact.
I do, however, know a young couple in their early 20s who wanted to move to Newtonville and found a nice apartment in a house. They put in an application and sent a very nice note to the landlord. The fact is, they jumped on as soon as they saw it listed, but were already standing in line. Competition was simply too steep.
There is demand for housing. When demand gets high and supply remains low, prices go up (and prices aren’t always in the form of money, they can also be in the form of carefully choosing tenants). If supply increases then it can help offset demand, thereby keeping prices lower.
Is this a problem? Yes, it is. But fighting Austin Street isn’t going to solve it. I see a lot of 2 family homes that did have rental units become condos. I see 2 family homes become single family homes. These are also problems that need solutions.
@Greg-Please…if you think she’s wrong, then just state where she is wrong…and why. Calling for apologies just creates a side show.
How does construction of new apartments create incentives to raise the rent of existing apartments?
There is no description of the houses the overheard seniors in Mark’s tale are attempting to stay in – are they McMansions? Bungalows? Did they live in them all their lives? Inherit them for a dollar? Buy them after winning the lottery?
There is a great conflating of many issues in the article. For example, rich people who buy McMansions generally pay more in property taxes than they cost the City (in school fees, trash fees, etc.). The taxes they pay could be put towards caring for the ‘residents who are already here.’
Also, aging in place may not be the best option if the senior’s house is not accessible, they no longer drive, family is far away, etc.
Just to pick the phrase pointed out above, “put to rest the idea that Newton needs to import poor people” without tackling the entire article, I would like to know why anyone thinks that Newton is specifically trying to “import poor people.”
As Grieser says, “they are already here,” and as Mark points out, high taxes (among other things) are “displacing the most vulnerable citizens” in Newton. Both true statements but there is a disconnect between them and “importing poor people.” The actual idea is to help those 1 in 8 households stay here.
How do we do that? If not by adding new housing, how? I’d like to know your specific solutions rather than broad generalitons of what you see happening like the “radical transformation and urbanization of our villages now underway.”
How do we keep the land values from continuing their rize? How do we keep rents from going up? How do we keep the two family homes from being sold? What is the radical transformation you are talking about and how do you propose to do things differently?
Greg, is your problem really her word choice? “Poor” may not be your word choice but low income earners know they are poor. Surely there is a larger context here than word choice.
Jerry, your personal experience of where low income families live is limited. They live all over Newton in homes that have been in their family for years, in homes that they purchased decades ago when prices were reasonable and the dollar went much farther, in the many, but dwindling, two and three family homes that are part of what makes Newton special, in rooms rented out in huge, beautiful Victorians whose owners can no longer afford them, and in studios and 1 BR accessory apartments all over.
@Lucia – I bought my place 20 years ago. There’s no way I could afford to buy it now when it’s doubled in value. A lot of seniors bought their places 30 or 40 years ago, or more and their places are worth way more than what they paid for them – and therefore the property taxes are based on a much higher valuation.
You are right that aging in place isn’t best for everyone, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right choice for many people. IMO, it’s sad and wrong if being unable to afford property taxes is the sole reason someone has to leave their home and neighborhood.
Construction of new expensive apartments, along with limiting the supply of cheaper apartments, definitely incentivizes owners to raise their rents. As Chuck says, the rental units in homes are growing more competitive.
Sq footage is sq footage. If a new 1 BR with 1 bath is $2500, then why wouldn’t a current owner of the same size apt charging, as Emily says, $750 or $1100 not raise his some? It would be a really kind hearted soul who doesn’t need the money not to. There is no restriction on raising rents and they go up when the owner thinks they can make more.
mgwa, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I think long time home owners’ property taxes stay the same if the house stays the same in Newton. Overrides cause a tax increase. I agree that would be a terrible reason to have to leave your home, but it definitely happens.
Marti – the tax rate stays the same, but the valuation goes up, therefore the tax bill goes up.
Marti,
Yes, apartments of greater value could give apartment owners the idea that they could get move money for their apartments. However, it’s difficult to compare an third floor apartment in an old farmhouse (like the one my wife and I rented in Newton Centre in the early 90s that no longer exists) with one in a new building. Many of the older apartments have older systems, older kitchens and the “charm” that comes with an older home. These new apartments will be very different. I’m suer some apartment owners upgraded their systems and renovated the apartments, but those calculations tend to be done on a different scale.
The same is true of any real estate investment situation. The question isn’t “how much can I raise rents?” it’s “what do I need to do in order to get a greater return?” If you have the money to make improvements and believe the payoff will work, then you’re going to do that. But a lot of people who own the apartments aren’t likely to make those improvements until absolutely necessary. Even at an additional $1400 per month (in a doubling situation from one that Emily mentions above) it will take 15 months before you start to see a profit on a $20,000 kitchen improvement. Why do it?
And if you’ve ever redone your kitchen, you know that $20k is a relatively low number. That also assumes that the only thing you need to do is upgrade the kitchen, not also the bathrooms, structure and other systems.
I agree with Kathleen Kouril Grieser and continue to find the animus of many of the ‘headlines’ of blog threads here to be offensive and hate-talk inspiring.
My BFF the Mayor enlisted the Dukakis Center to do the study that KKG cites in her column. The statistic is correct, but it tells less than half the story. The 1 in 8 households who make less than 50% of the median income have very few affordable options in rental housing. For the almost 2,000 households making under 30% of the area median income (AMI), there are fewer than 1,000 rental units they can afford; for the 750 families making 30-50% of AMI, there are around 250 affordable rental units.
So where are they all living?
Less than half of them are fortunate enough to live in subsidized housing or deed restricted affordable units created by inclusionary zoning, or the few low cost rentals that are available. The rest are “cost burdened,” which is to say that most of them are living in rental units that cost 50% or more of their monthly income, leaving little for all the other living expenses most of us take for granted. When their rent is raised, many move out of the city. Because the creation of affordable units has stalled, there are no affordable options so they are not being replaced by others in the very low to low income range.The ownership situation is even more dire with virtual nothing affordable for those making under 50% and hardly any for those making up to 100% of AMI. That leaves something like 4,000 families living in housing they cannot afford to own. In other words, to borrow a phrase from Mitt Romney, the poor already living in Newton are “self deporting,” not being “imported,” as KKG so delicately put it.
The demographic trends for those entering the workforce is similarly daunting. The number of residents aged 25 to 44 has declined dramatically since 2000, which means that those who are working their way up the ladder are not coming to Newton. The number of households making less than $125,000 a year, the median income have declined and been replaced by those making over $200,000 a year. The same is true of lower income seniors on a fixed or modest income. The false assumption is that Newton is getting older because the existing population is agin. Not so. Those who make less are selling and moving because there are no affordable options for downsizing. And they are being almost exclusively replaced by high income seniors.
This isn’t because of tear downs or “radical transformations” or “urban renewal.” It is because the demand for housing vastly exceeds the supply, and the only way to fix that is to increase the supply. Up until the 1980s, the housing costs in Newton and Massachusetts were pretty much in line with the average across the country. Starting in 1980, however, the cost of housing in our region, and Newton in particular, increased dramatically leaving the most of the rest of the country (with the exception of places like San Francisco and New York) in the dust. Why? Simple. Since 1980, housing production in Newton and Massachusetts, particularly multi-family dwellings, has not kept pace. And not by a little. By a long shot.
I know the people who do not want more housing in Newton will find this a hard pill to swallow, but the lack of new housing affordable to all income levels is why Newton is becoming a gated city where money is the key to get in and stay in. Not only are we not “importing poor people,” we are not even keeping up with the housing demand for the less affluent people who already live here.
At best, the term “import poor people” is an insensitive word choice.
Worse is KKG’s implication that “certain incumbents” have adopted an “import poor people” agenda (although she provides no evidence that this is how any of our elected officials ever frame this issue), followed by her endorsement of six challengers who presumably will save us from importing poor people.
Now in her column, KKG uses a nice literary device, right out a veteran politician’s playbook, by starting with antidotal tales of the Newton “poor people” she’s met.
But in that column (and in every other column Andy Levin, for some reason, keeps allowing her to write) KKG and her Newton Villages Alliance again offer zero suggestions for addressing our housing needs — other than to suggest that we stop every project by electing her NVA Six.
In fact, since its formation in May 2014, the NVA has opposed 100 percent of all proposed projects.
Let me repeat that:
Zero proposed solutions.
One-hundred percent opposition to every project.
So forgive me if KKG’s sudden compassion for Newton’s poor feels like another insincere tactic by the “We’re against everything NVA.”
Tricia, actually the tax bill goes up when the city budget goes up, which lately is every year.
Chuck, my kitchen renovation cost more than $30,000 years ago but that and how an owner calculates an investment have nothing to do with my point.
The non-renovated apartments are the ones charging the least rent, naturally and they are going up right along with the luxury ones, proportionately. I’m not talking about charm, but old appliances, old linoleum, old carpet, old, winding steps with low ceilings going down to the basement with the expensive washer/dryers. With the shortage of non-renovated apartments continuing to grow, their rents are going up too. I know of 2 – 2 BRs that are now $1600 and were $1200 three years ago. I didn’t imply that they would be renting as high as the new luxury ones.
The renovated apartments in old two and three families are going up with everything else right now; 2 BR with 1 bath apartments are renting for around $2000 and 1 BR with 1 bath for around $1400, including ones on the 3rd floor.
Marti,
I agree that rents are going up. That’s supply and demand.
Having more apartments on the market can only help that.
According to Wikipedia, “there are 296 towns and 55 cities in Massachusetts”. People like Ted think that Newton has to be turned into the solution to everyone’s problem. It makes such people feel good and they use their miniature political influence to effect that locally.
Aside from places like Weston, Carlisle, etc., there are many towns around that can accommodate people of limited financial means who wish to live in the general area to be close to friends or relatives.
As far as seniors wanting to stay here, I can say from personal experience, never having been a really high income person, that, if you lived a financially conservative lifestyle while you owned a house that you purchased many years ago so that you feel very at home in Newton, then you probably have a small or zero mortgage balance and can come up with the money for taxes and upkeep which isn’t much different than rent.
And many seniors have made the decision to sell their now valuable homes to developers of luxury homes, and move to Florida, where costs are much lower and many of their friends and relatives now live. They don’t want to stay here.
Statistics can be misinterpreted accidentally or intentionally to make any point one would like to make.
@Ted. Two questions. You say “Less than half of them are fortunate enough to live in subsidized housing or deed restricted affordable units created by inclusionary zoning, or the few low cost rentals that are available.” It is possible that this less than half are living in housing that is LESS expensive then “subsidized or deed restricted affordable units…?” I remember from a previous blog that “affordable” does not mean affordable. First, do you know, in fact, that the unfortunate group is paying more or are you guessing? Second, does anyone have a link to the study?
I’m not sure why Blueprint Bill included my name in his comments, I said nothing in regards to commentary in question and have nothing to say now.
I think picking on those two words in the context of the entire opinion piece seems a bit unfair. @Greg: If the more PC term “economically disadvantaged” was used instead, would you still want “at the very least” an apology from the writer? I think it would be fairer to discuss the content of the piece, rather than focus on those two words.
As relatively new to town and trying to understand the Austin St. brouhaha, I am getting that it is in broad strokes a battle between those who consider themselves “preservationists” and those who think Newton needs to catch up with the times.
There is no doubt a NIMBY component to the opposition, as there is with nearly any new project, but I also sense the opposition is more complex than that. There seem to be many who are opposed because they feel the economic terms are just a very bad deal for the city. There is also the realization that even after this new project, affordable housing will still be scarce in the area.
As others point out, not doing anything will not solve the affordability problem. It would have been nice if the author of the opinion piece had a solution. But will this specific project solve the affordability problem except from a small minority of units set aside? From my understanding it will not.
If the economic terms of the deal could be renegotiated, and the number of affordable units increased substantially, would the opposition be as fierce?
@Greg: You clearly misunderstand the message conveyed in Kathleen’s latest article. Being the young man that she references in her article, if reducing poverty in Newton is a legitimate goal of our local government, then I can assure you that we can do better than the status quo. As someone who understands both the reality of poverty in Newton and the policy implications of our public officials decisions, there is no question to me that we are getting further and further away from treating the root causes of the dysfunction that causes very real problems for actual people living in Newton. It took me getting involved with Jess Barton’s campaign to learn why. And let me tell you, the experience was eye opening, but for all the wrong reasons.
Kathleen raises a few key fundamental truths that are overlooked by too many in Newton. First, she correctly articulates that our elected officials reliance on consistent overrides disproportionally harms our City’s dwindling middle class. Second, she correctly points out that Newton has done more to address the affordable housing crisis than the vast majority of the 351 municipalities in Massachusetts. (http://www.mass.gov/hed/docs/dhcd/hd/shi/shiinventory.pdf.) Third, she hits the nail on the head when she states that Newton must concentrate on providing services to those currently living in subsidizing housing.
As someone who grew up in Newton and experienced things that hopefully no one reading this can relate to, I’ve quickly grown tired of following the misguided bullying that takes place when certain people raise very valid points. If you or anyone else wants to continue harassing Kathleen on this particular article, then I request that you schedule a time to meet with me in person so that we can have a real life conversation about this. My e-mail is [email protected].
@Ted – Lets just slow down a bit, and get facts straight. You quoted the Dukakis report, and then put many “facts” that are not in the Dukakis report.
I hope you can outline your source, so I can arrive at similar conclusions as you. On other hand if they are purely your imagination, let know as well so we can just ignore this post.
Here are specific instances where I could not tie things to the Dukakis report-
1. Your math around housing situation of <50% AMI, and that majority are “cost burdened”. Source please? Also – where do you count retirees who own their homes but are purely on social security ($22K/yr) and hence less than 50% AMI?
2. 25-44 yr population has decreased in Newton (fact), but how did you take that to claim that young people are not moving to Newton because they cant afford it. There are two big changes since 2000. 1st – people are having children much later. Newton is attractive for families, not necessary for singles. So people are actually moving here but having children later. Evidence – 5-18 age group actually increased. 2nd – there are many more options available for younger people without children in Boston itself. Chinatown, Seaport, Leather District really opened up for young high income earners in last 15 years. AGAIN – Looking for evidence to support your conclusion.
3. House Price Index from 87 shows that Boston area in fact is somewhere in the middle (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/02/us-house-prices), also from Dukakis report, the new housing stock remained at slow growth rate starting 1960. So would love to hear your data to support the 1980 magic year.
Looking forward to your sharing of evidence.
Thank you
@Tom @Charlie
Sounds like you two should hookup, and maybe even somebody like Kathleen Hobson and do something on NewTv. If it could be made possible I feel a lot of people may well become somewhat enlightened.
Bravo Kathleen!
I was chatting with my neighbors today, and they were excitedly discussing your article. Apparently they have been discussing it with all sorts of people, and they all happen to agree. I do too – I think you nailed it.
@Jeffrey – Here is the link http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/exec/BluestoneDemographicsFinal.pdf
@Newbie – Form your own opinion. But Austin Street in specific and mayor’s 40R pose two big red flags for me – 1st – It does not reflect the wishes of people. If the parking lot was surplus, no one asked the residents for ideas around alternative uses. Instead, the high density housing has been shoved down everyone’s throat.
2nd and more important is mayor’s goal – add 800 new affordable units by 2021, using 40R. 40R requires 4 to 5 market price units be built for every affordable housing. In other words, just in next 5 years we will be adding 4,000 to 5,333 new incremental units to Newton.
In 2010 Newton had just shy of 37K housing units (Dukakis report), we will be adding between 12 – 15% more units. People move to Newton for its schools. Just last year, we passed an override to address overcrowding of schools. So go figure how many more over rides are in works!
Finally, equally important is the motivation of this mayor (who i regretfully voted twice). He has openly signaled interest in a different political office. He is using affordable housing for his political ambitions, at expense of newton taxpayers.
Whether or not she meant it the way it was quoted (versus just having extremely poor word choice), at minimum I agree with Jerry’s diagnosis of the column:
“Kathleen Kouril Grieser does a good job of describing the challenges of the most vulnerable of our citizens, but her prescriptions for development plans does absolutely nothing to help.”
They need help, but she’s not actually helping.
I also agree with Alderman Hess-Mahan’s description of both the overall housing crisis in the metro Boston area. People are being forced out or “self-deporting” due to the overall shortage of housing stock, which necessarily drives up the costs, and then their voices fall silent because they aren’t here anymore. Related side note: Barry, yes there are a lot of cities and towns in the state, but we happen to be right near the heart of the state’s economic activity, so it’s not surprising that a higher concentration of people would want/try to live here — and static supply plus rapidly rising demand equals rapidly rising property/housing/renting costs.
So almost (maybe not even “almost”) necessarily, there will need to be a significant increase in the number of housing units in Newton. That’s just a geographic reality. The question then becomes: will any of them be at prices ordinary earners can afford and will it be done in a responsible manner? There are a lot of factors that determine the answers to that.
But stonewalling virtually any new construction outside of single-family teardowns/replacements is sure to accomplish two things: 1) Continued insufficient rate of construction, forcing the prices up even more. 2) Whatever construction does happen is less and less likely to be done responsibly or in any manner consistent with Newton as it currently exists. That means haphazard and unplanned sites. That means (more) environmentally irresponsible projects. And so forth.
The only way to ensure we have a city that allows a broad range of ages and incomes to live here (which, in my view, is also the only way the city will survive in any recognizable form in terms of people and values, even if there are some visual changes) is to come up with and execute a long-range (not piecemeal) plan to responsibly and coherently build a lot more units in compact/non-sprawling/non-random distributions in various areas of the city.
Some things are going to change. But they can change with our input or they can change without it. The resistance to all of these projects will inevitably lead to the latter course. I would really much rather put the community’s residents in the driver’s seat on directing the change than put the community in front of the steamrollers.
I know this view won’t earn me many fans from a lot of the regular commenters on here, but I haven’t seen anyone on that side present a realistic view of Newton sitting right in one of the most expensive and housing-short metro regions in the world right now and continuing to be exactly the same give or take a few hundred single-family teardowns.
My great-great grandfather, Dr. S.W. Abbott, moved his family from Woburn to Newton in 1904. His wife moved in to a residence on Chestnut St in 1907 and complained bitterly about the housing construction happening behind their 1890-built house. But then, during World War II, one of her granddaughters (my late grandmother) moved in to one of those houses right around the corner on Woodward St. Today my family still lives in the house on Chestnut and my cousin lives in the house on Woodward. None of this would be possible if the density level had been frozen in place in 1904. No future generations of our family will be able to stay in Newton (let alone right nearby) without more housing being built in Newton in the coming years. Again, it’s just supply and demand.
And to briefly add one fairly important population statistic to the discussion: Massachusetts gained about 50k residents from 2000 to 2006. It gained 335k from 2006 to 2014. That’s a pretty huge demographic shift we all have to find a way to manage. Housing, schools, services, etc. Everything in the whole state is going to need to be expanded, probably. It will cost money, but we can’t wish away an influx of hundreds of thousands of people just because it will cost money. I’m not stoked about the rising costs either. I’m just not ignoring the core underlying factor.
I think most of what I’d want to say has already been mentioned in the comments, for better or worse.
A few points:
1) Lots of folks seem upset by the headline. I think Greg tends to come at his headlines from his years as a journalist, sometimes the lead gets the eyeballs. But Ms. Kouril Grieser said it, not Greg. I personally think it distracted from the point she was trying to make. I also suspect that the language was intentional, as part of her job in writing the editorial is to garner attention, and lines such as those certainly do that. But I will not focus on it, since frankly enough has been said above and the words are hers to defend (although it is clear she does not lack for defenders on this board!)
2) Ms. Kouril Grieser starts with three stories. I agree that there are many folks struggling in our fair city. I think more should be done to help them. It is heartbreaking if our seniors are being forced to choose whether to live in Newton due to costs, and stories regarding children living in difficult conditions should inspire all of us to figure out how to better serve those in need in our community.
3.) Where Ms. Kouril Grieser loses her train of argument is connecting these difficult stories to what is going on in Newton. I think she is trying to say that the various 40Bs, Austin Street, Court Street, etc, have the potential to change the city in a negative way. And that the city should be focusing on its residents (those three stories) and not on development. I completely understand that the city needs to focus on the disadvantaged residents, but except for the argument that additional people leads to additional kids in the schools and additional overrides, I’m not sure I understand the connection. Perhaps it is also that additional affordable units will encourage more disadvantaged residents, and that the city can’t support them. But that ignores the possibility that many of the folks I know in Newton who rent would gladly more into rent-subsidized apartments if available. Not everyone will qualify, but why the immediate assumption that these affordable units won’t be able to help our own?
4)I think this is far more about the NVA’s positions than about protecting our disadvantaged residents. Her first story quotes a “gentle divorced woman” who couldn’t afford the rising property taxes, demolitions and McMansions were transforming her neighborhood, and she could no longer keep up.” I’m not sure how the demolitions and McMansions have anything to do with the story, if anything those demolitions and McMansions have increased the value of the woman’s home. Look, I’m someone who hates McMansions. And I hate demos. But I also recognize that if we limit them, we also severely harm our seniors. Many of our senior residents own their homes, and many of the folks being forced to downsize due to taxes count their homes as their greatest asset. If you restrict teardowns and/or change the zoning code to prohibit modern sized homes, the values of those existing properties are going to drop. How does that reality mesh with Ms. Kouril Grieser’s story? I think the reality here is far more complicated than she chooses to acknowledge.
5) It is clear that overrides can have a huge effect on Newton resident’s struggling to make ends meet. I fully acknowledge that. Trust me, I feel each one deeply, especially with a brood of kids.But let’s also acknowledge that overrides aren’t the only reason our taxes go up. Property values have risen a great deal in Newton. Folks want to move to our fair city. Prices have gone up 20% over the past few years. Assessments have gone up as well, as our property taxes are based on FMV. Ms. Kouril Grieser’s stories imply that the luxury condos/apartments are the source of this increased in property values and/or rent. But that is just not the case. Even if you ignore the laws of supply and demand, the reality is that we exist in a larger real estate market, and metro-west is a very hot area of the Commonwealth. Needham and Natick are now priced nearly as high as Newton. Rents are going up across the Commonwealth. Communities like Newton aren’t going to be immune. And so Ms. Kouril Grieser’s anti-development proposals do what exactly? Limit the supply? Limit the affordability for those now priced out the market? She points out a problem but her solution isn’t a solution, it is pushing a different agenda altogether.
6)Ms. Kouril Grieser states that Newton “has surpassed the state’s requirement for providing subsidized housing to those in the region who qualify for it, an achievement matched by few communities in the Commonwealth. Newton has close to 2,500 units of subsidized housing on the state’s inventory, more than any comparable community in absolute terms.” Not quite sure what to make of this statement, besides to point out that this has been challenged by the Commonwealth, and that many our surrounding communities have actually met the 10% requirement…which Newton clearly hasn’t done. So while Ms. Kouril Grieser clearly would like to challenge the 40B statute and its effect on Newton, I suspect that her candidates will have to face reality, which is that the affordability requirements have not yet been met.
7) Speaking of her candidates, I do appreciate her editorial for making it very clear that we have a choice in Newton. I was surprised to find Jake and Brian on her list, since neither of them have supported some of her most important points. But I think they are included so that Ms. Kouril Grieser can claim victory if her primary candidate of Lynne, Julie and Chris Pitts lose their various elections.
8) A number of folks have accused Greg and others of bullying the anti-development folks on this blog. I’ve got to say, I don’t see it. This is a pretty nice place to post opinions, and there are many many supporters of Ms. Kouril Grieser here. Counting above, there are at least 10 different names, some of whom have been very vocal (and at times angry). I think all have been welcomed. But there is a difference between being welcome and going unchallenged. There is a difference between calling someone out on their bull and bullying. I’ve really enjoyed my back and forth with Jeffery and others. Some other folks have taken the fact that some of us have challenged their assumptions or posted in opposition as a personal attack somehow. Most of us on this blog are complex individuals and occasionally post in anger and frustration. I’m ok with that. But I also don’t complain too much about it…
9) Tom Davis, I’m sure you didn’t mean it this way, but asking to meet folks in person when you disagree with them on the blog has an aggressive tone to it. Perhaps I misread your post. I’m certainly too old and tired to take a blog post outside, so to speak. I may disagree with Ms. Kouril Grieser about a lot of things, but I’m sure she loves Newton just like I do. But I choose, as do a lot of my fellow posters, to make our arguments on a blog. Ms. Kouril Grieser chooses to make per points in the newspaper read by thousands of people (vs. the 20 people in their underwear reading this post). I’m sure she is capable of defending herself from the verbal disagreements on the blog, just as she was capable of expressing herself so passionately in the Tab. It was, after all, her choice to publish her many editorials after all.
10) I’d like to point out some concrete things we could do to help our residents in need, but as no one is still reading, I’ll do that in a separate post.
Lots of other points, but it is late and as I said, many points have already been made. It will be a VERY interesting election. Goodnight all.
As I’d like to focus on the fact that we should do more for our residents in need, here are some concrete proposals that might be a starting point. (1) Approve secondary apartments (Mother-in-law apartments) especially if rented at affordable rents (much more on this at a later date, but this has the potential to increase potential affordable housing in Newton); (2) Use the $1,000,000 Austin Street payment to increase the elderly property tax abatement (that one pains me, but if it is directly applied in this manner I won’t object); (3) Add to the building permit fee so that every McMansion or house expansion above 1000 square feet from the prior home requires a payment to the elderly property tax abatement endowment; (4) Increase the requirements on developers for any trees removed in the course of development, including within 12 months of the sale of the home (so the prior owner can’t take down the trees). Doesn’t save our tree cover, but does keep us the garden city.; (5) Work with the governor and legislature to help address our growing herioin and drug problem across the Commonwealth. While many of the programs used to protect our children are Commonwealth level programs and not administered by the City, I am sure that greater resources will help. (6) Work with developers to market affordable units within Newton. I don’t believe they can be Newton exclusive, but the more residents on the waiting lists, the greater the chance we can help our own. (7) work with our local colleges to set up tutoring programs and teacher internships programs in our schools with the greatest levels of poverty (8) increase funding to the Boys and Girls Club and YMCA for FREE afterschool care if possible. (9) create an override focused on our elderly and disadvantaged residents to do some of the above, make it on homes above 1 million in value. A McMansion tax hike so to speak.
Look, I’m just spitballing. But Bill H. above is correct, and I echo his demographic point. But I also think we can do more. Just wanted to make sure that the conversation didn’t just focus on the strawman argument from the editorial, but actually somewhat focused on some concrete things we could do to make Newton better. Because even if Austin Street doesn’t move forward and the 40Bs are somehow stopped, these issues will be here, right?
@Fig newtonville – It’s 21 and this is a bathrobe 🙂
@Fig
I was just reading your last post and scratching my head – I thought you were talking sense (other than Austin St), it almost sounded a little like the Carlsberg ad, but then you blew it with the last paragraph, for me anyhows!
I think Jerry’s blender comment yesterday pretty much nailed it, but I went though KKG’s op-ed paragraph by paragraph to try and understand the author’s assertions and the evidence she provides in support of those assertions. This is what I found.
Paragraph 1. Primary assertion: Good people suffer from rising housing costs. While that may be true, an anecdote about one person is insufficient to make assertions about housing costs in a city of more than 88,000. Moreover, housing costs are a regional phenomenon, and the metropolitan area includes some 4.5 million people. The author makes a secondary and unsupported assertion that “demolitions and McMansions” affected the subject’s personal finances negatively. Causation is implied and unclear. Author’s use of adjectives “gentle” and “beloved” suggests her subject is deserving of better treatment. Are others less deserving?
Paragraph 2: An anecdote about one person’s difficult personal history. Paragraph makes no assertion. An anecdote about one individual does not prove a city of 88,000 is socially and economically diverse. Insufficient data. The paragraph’s unstated assertion is that the author has empathy for this person and is therefore a caring individual.
Paragraph 3: Author conveys third anecdote about the cost of housing, and how that affects an older couple. Author then begins mixing in a range of assertions: that “developers and politicians” are to blame for the high cost of housing, and that “new luxury units [are] driving rents higher.” Author includes no evidence to support either assertion. Housing costs are driven by regional demand, and the author’s culprits are more closely associated with supply or the lack thereof.
Paragraph 4: Author first asserts “there is no housing shortage” because the three individuals described in her anecdotes have roofs over their heads. Such evidence is insufficient. If the housing shortage is regional, and the region includes 4.5 million people, any assertion about a housing shortage requires stronger evidence and a larger statistical sample, including some who lack roofs over their heads. Author also asserts “elected leaders” are to blame for “policy failures,” when the apparent cause of “devastating upheaval” in these people’s lives is the cost of housing, which is regional and market-driven and not something municipal office-holders can control.
Paragraph 5: The author conflates a host of complaints into one paragraph: that the owners of private property should not be able to evict tenants or redevelop a property; that someone unspecified (perhaps incumbents?) is “ignoring zoning” and “using scarce resources,“ again unspecified, that could be spent on the poor; that developers are “politically connected”; that “residents’ pleas“ for park land are ignored; that something unspecified (but probably bad) is being done to “neighborhood schools;” and that “historic streetscapes and villages” are being razed. No examples or evidence is presented to support these assertions.
Paragraph 6. Author asserts that “overrides are punishing Newton’s working families.” While this may be true, she presents no evidence. Last sentence is meant to instill fear in the reader, so the op-ed ventures into the realm of fear-mongering propaganda.
Paragraph 7: Author asserts Newton has met the State-mandated threshold for affordable housing under 40B. The assertion is contested. While the mayor claims to the City has met the threshold, the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee has disagreed. Twice. The matter is far from settled. (In 2010, Newton voters opposed the repeal of 40B by a 72-28 margin, so most support 40B legislation.) The author makes secondary assertions: that other communities must build affordable housing, and that “Newton must concentrate” on its own citizens. In other words, Newton is full. Although any assertion that Newton is full is ahistorical, as the city around 5% below its peak population of 1960.
Paragraph 8: Author asserts that fixed-income seniors cannot afford market-rate rents and wealthier seniors “are too smart to squander” their savings on a “high-priced” condo or apartment. The word “luxury” appears twice in this paragraph and seven times in the op-ed, ostensibly to criticize the type of housing “being built,” although it is unclear what “luxury” means or where that new housing is being built. Author also asserts that City should provide more support (e.g., “social worker”) for seniors and grant seniors a tax break. Given the author’s worries about “unfunded liabilities debt” in paragraph 6, it is odd for her to support new spending and unclear where how the additional support for seniors will be funded or how a tax break for seniors might contribute to the City’s debt.
Paragraph 9: Author asserts that “lawns and trees” are being paved over and “Newton’s heritage” demolished, but no examples or evidence is provided. The author also asserts that Newton’s future involves “monster homes for the rich” and “high-density units for everyone else – concentrating wealth and land ownership in fewer hands.” It is unclear how this future will unfold, or in which camp the author or the reader will reside, so this assertion seems like fear-mongering. Regardless, the author asserts that the apparent “refusal” of “certain incumbents” to “recognize the terrible difficulties faced by those in need”…“makes their hardship even harder to bear.” It is unclear who is bearing the hardship, the poor of the author, but she suggests the pain is limited to those “who are already here,” nevermind the inscription on the Statue of Liberty.
Paragraph 10: The author makes two assertions: that Newton has enough poor people living in the city; and that they are being driven away by “radical transformation and urbanization of our villages now underway.” First, the author provides no examples of other cities and town and the percentage of households at different income levels. Second, she provides no examples of how villages are being transformed and urbanized or what these words mean to her.
Paragraph 11. Similar to paragraph 5, the author conflates several complaints into a single paragraph but provides no examples or evidence to support her many unfounded, if not mendacious, assertions. These include: that an increase of housing supply will push rents (and other costs of living) upward, although these are factors of a regional economy; that traffic, likewise regional, will increase because of “luxury high-density housing projects” in Newton; that public school classrooms will be crowded by the addition of a few dozen apartments although such units will be far outnumbered by the generational turnover of some 35,000 existing homes; that new development somehow causes a “loss of commercial tax base”; that a new building in a parking lot somehow causes a “loss of trees and green space”; that low-density residential neighborhoods yield more in taxes than more compact development.
Paragraph 12: The author combines two assertions. First, that the City’s financial health is threatened by gentrification, although that would raise property values and therefore tax receipts. Second, that the welfare of less affluent citizens would be threatened if the City allowed there to be more housing options. Again, the descriptors “high-density” and “luxury” are used to describe what’s wrong with the proposed development. Although a higher number of units per acre could, arguably, make individual units cheaper and the Austin Street development a greater generator of tax revenue, the number of units was reduced in response to opposition by people like the author.
Paragraph 13: The author asserts that Newton’s financial situation will require the City to tighten its belt, raise taxes, and expand its commercial tax base. It is unclear, because so many assertions are made in this op-ed, but the author seems to suggest she would support commercial development, but this may be a canard, as the author has been vehement in her objection to any and all development, developers, and elected officials who consider development.
Paragraph 14: The author asserts that a “new reality” – again unclear what that is – requires political change. To save poor people, our houses, trees, parks, neighborhood schools, village businesses, parking lots, and open space, the author asserts, we need to vote in new political leaders. With this assertion, the author is claiming that our elected officials, some of whom have years of public service, do not care for us, our kids, trees, or merchants; that certain aldermen are in bed with evil developers who, somehow, have the magical power to increase your monthly mortgage payment; that a parking lot is green space; that the law of supply and demand doesn’t apply in the Garden City; that Newton is an island and not part of a metropolitan economy; and that some of the author’s best friends are poor people.
Thank you John for that meticulous analysis.
And thank you Fig for this…
Yes I’m guilty of using the three most incendiary words in that column to jump start a larger discussion.
I’m guilty but not sorry.
We are eight days away from a very important election and housing/development is the driving issue of this campaign. Along comes a columnist in the TAB, who is also a leader of the “We’re against everything” Newton Villages Alliance. She strings together a string of unsubstantiated claims and concludes by writing “that’s why I encourage all Newton voters to join me in voting” for six candidates she wants us to believe will do more for Newton’s poor than the four incumbents (Marcia Johnson, Susan Albright, Ted Hess-Mahan and Deb Crossely) the NVA has targeted for replacement.
Maybe Lynne LeBlanc, Jake Auchincloss Julia Malakie, Jim Cote, Chris Pitts or Brian Yates would care to tell us what their solution is.
Clearly Kathleen Kouril Grieser and Newton Villages Alliance don’t have one
@Simon: I welcome the opportunity to talk with anyone about these issues, and I would very much look forward to a televised discussion/debate about them. In my discussions with those who unconditionally support the development of luxury apartment units with few subsidized units, I can assure you that there is a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding about reality in this policy discussion.
@THM and/or Greg: Would either of you agree to participate in this?
The solution is to take a deep breath, and avoid making bigger mistakes trying to fix the problem. The US has tried many times to make housing affordable over the last 70 years–housing projects, home interest deductions, Fannie Mae, rent controls, etc. These efforts have dismal failures. Let’s save ourselves another costly experiment.
@Jeffrey Pontiff – I appreciate your candor and clarity – i.e do nothing
This editorial closely parallels the national immigration debate – just google “importing the poor”. Arguments associate the importation framing to make the case that the US already has enough poor people, so we shouldn’t be accepting more.
Kathleen’s article has, at least, elevated the problem of the difficulty that many struggling seniors and moderate and low income residents are having with remaining in Newton. Arguing over the terms “poor” versus “moderate or low income” does nothing to change what is forcing such drastic demographic changes in Newton and what we can do about it beyond shouting at each other.
Some are claiming that the stories about seniors having difficulty making ends meet in Newton are just a few isolated “anecdotes” that can’t really be quantified. Maybe that’s true, but I’ve been around a lot of Newton seniors recently and I’ve heard many of these so-called “anecdotes”. If these are anecdotes, there are a lot of them going around.
A good deal of the problem involves the interrelationship between higher taxes and water rates, combined with higher electric bills, homeowners insurance and other cost of living increases. This affects seniors whether they own or rent here. Many of these increases involve market forces that are beyond the power of anyone here in Newton to solve, but the sad fact is that many, many seniors can’t afford the costs of living here. A huge McMansion plunked into a neighborhood of modest homes has to jack up both property values and taxes overall. If a senior wants to move, that may be good news, but if they don’t, it makes staying here all that harder. And it then goes back to exactly what we want this City to be in the years and decades ahead and what our actions, and policies produce; a real community of involved citizens or a mere transit point for well to do young professionals who come here for the schools and the prestigious Newton address, and then move on.
Thankfully this is one senior who can still afford to stay here, but I use that term tentatively. I don’t want to leave Newton, but there’s no way that staying here is sustainable if the growth in living costs over the past 2 decades continues apace. Particularly when the Federal bean counters claim that there’s been no inflation during the past year that affects seniors; So my government retirement and Social Security checks will receive no cost of living increase. I feel for so many people who are far less well off than I am and I think that people on both sides of this dispute do, too.
From what I can see, no new housing in Newton is actually affordable. It costs too much to buy or too much to rent.
So pretty much all of the new residential development cannot be supported as helping make Newton more affordable by offering opportunities for lower income folks to rent or buy.
Further, new residential development increases the the number of students flowing into the schools, so the budget for education has to increase more than it would if there were no residential development.
That has to ultimately lead to overrides to add more teachers and school capacity.
And that makes Newton less affordable and diverts money from solving the OPEB problem.
It seems to me that suggestions along the lines of preserving current older multi-unit housing with relatively low rents and allowing in-law apartments etc make sense.
I left Newton because I got much better value elsewhere.
My current single family home sits on half an acre, in a very pleasant section of Framingham, abutting conservation land and I have a great swimming pool. Plus a great solar orientation.
It cost at least half as much as anything comparable in Newton.
My two family in Newton was demolished along with most of the trees and 25 years of shrub and flower plantings, so a larger 2 unit condo building could be built.
A two bedroom rental unit renting at $1900/month disappeared in the process.
This kind of thing is happening across Newton and is another reason affordable housing is disappearing.
There may be a way to create affordable housing in Newton but the current trend of adding new residential development, especially in the villages, ultimately makes Newton less pleasant to live in and less affordable.
Barry wrote:
It’s easy to smugly say that. However, if during that time you were laid off (remember that recession we just had?) or had high medical bills or other financial difficulties outside of your control, there’s a good chance you had to refinance with a longer term to lower monthly payments or take out a home equity loan just to manage. And as Bob pointed out, payments that are affordable when one is working may not be when living on social security and retirement savings.
Well said, Bob Burke!
I agree with Bob Burke on the issue of aging in Newton. It is an important issue — locally, regionally, and nationally. See: Coming of Age In Aging America, a 4-minute video,
http://youtu.be/ZOA1v4-2Fos
Bob Burke, thank you for once again attempting to bring calm, clarity, and a desire to unite us.
It would be helpful if we, as a community, could come together and define what the “common good” for Newton actually includes. I doubt that can happen completely, yet maybe we can move towards that rather than continuing the “attack and eliminate” strategy used by some.
To add to the issue of housing for seniors in Newton the Newton Housing Authority has a three to five year waiting list and the average income for current senior tenants is slightly over $10,000 a year.
mgwa,
One can always come up with a scenario where someone can’t do what he/she would like to do. That’s life. People adjust to changing conditions if they have to. We don’t have to solve everyone’s problems, do we? Can’t people think and act for themselves when faced with a set of circumstances?
And, by the way, where are all those high earners supposed to live who are buying the so-called McMansions? They deserve a place in Newton too, don’t they? You want to keep them out? It’s as prejudicial as wanting to keep poorer people out.
By the way, Geoff made my point that it’s possible for people to live in a city or town outside Newton that is not too far away on much less money. So, problem solved. Why does everyone have to live in Newton?
Geoff:
Did you own your property in Newton? If so, didn’t you sell out to the property owner who developed it into condos and eliminated the rental unit? So in other words, you want to restrict the right of future property owners to do the same thing that you did, and maximize their investment in the same way that you did, because why exactly? You are living the good life in your new location per your post.
I’ve said it before, I’m no fan of McMansions, but restricting property transfers/eliminating teardowns for newer homes harms our current homeowners, especially our elderly who want to transition out of single family homeownership. I’d rather tax teardowns and larger homes. That might have some negative effect on sale prices too I acknowledge, but far less than any of the NVA “proposals”.
Bob Burke:
Thank you for your post. I don’t think anyone here was trying to imply that the 3 examples in the article were just random anecdotes, on the contrary, many of us are well aware from talking to neighbors and friends how expensive living in Newton can be. My point is that a lot of that is out of the control of the City. Energy bills, insurance, Social Security adjustments, medicare reimbursements, co-pays, medical costs, medicine costs, are all items we can’t control. Water/sewer and property taxes ARE items we can control as a city, so lets focus on those.
Water/sewer are use based, so that is more in your direct control. My senior neighbors use far less water than my family does (not having kids running the water all the time helps). Sewer rates/water rates going up can be a tough blow, but at least there is an element of control.
Property Taxes are certainly an item within the city’s control. I want to point out one thing that is in error in your post. You state:
“A huge McMansion plunked into a neighborhood of modest homes has to jack up both property values and taxes overall. If a senior wants to move, that may be good news, but if they don’t, it makes staying here all that harder.”
However, I don’t think this is how property taxes are calculated. See below from the Newton Assessors website Q&A:
A house three times larger than mine sold up the street from me for $2,000,000. Will that make my assessment go up?
No. If the property is three times larger than your property, it would not be considered comparable to yours. For example, if your property is a 1,500 square foot home, assessed for $500,000 and up the street a 4,500 square foot home sold for $2,000,000, it would not be considered comparable to your property and this sale would not impact your assessment. Assessments are based on comparable sales. Even if a 1,500 square foot home sold next door for $2,000,000, one sale would not impact your assessment. However, for example, if a few sales of 1,500 square foot homes sold for $2,000,000, then the market value of a 1,500 square foot home in that neighborhood would be close to $2,000,000. You should expect a change in future assessments because of the apparent change in market value. In this example where there were multiple sales of 1,500 square foot homes for $2,000,000, it appears the market value of the 1,500 square foot home is no longer $500,000.
I’ve found this to be true personally. My house is small for my neighborhood and many larger homes and expansions have occurred over the past 15 years. But my assessed value has gone up on a steady increase based on overall market conditions for homes my size. My neighborhood now has far more McMansions than simple homes, but my particular house has actually had a steady assessed value I think for the past 5 years or so, maybe with some small annual increase.
You can certainly blame the McMansions for eliminating affordable housing stock and looking plum ugly, but the rise in your property taxes is based on the overall market, not your neighbor’s largess. Just wanted to clarify that point.
Barry Cohen — Unfortunately, one person moving one family to Framingham doesn’t “solve” much of anything when there are 335,000 new people in the state of Massachusetts since 2006. We’re not just moving people around a chessboard; we just dumped an entire set of checkers on top of the existing pieces.
The United States as a whole had as many births in 2007 AND in 2008 as in 1957 at the peak of the Baby Boom. There are also 83.1 million millennials in the U.S. and 75.4 million Baby Boomers. We’re going to be in for a world of hurt if we all act like there’s no major demographic transition underway across the country and in our state — or if we act like “BUILD MORE EXURBS” is the silver bullet solution.
Bill H,
I think you distorted what I was saying. Geoff’s house is not the only house outside of Newton.
@Bill H – I dont know where you are getting this information (or MIS information). US Census Newton facts should be beyond dispute – http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2545560.html
From 2000 to 2014 Mass grew from 6,547K –> 6,745K (or at 0.213% CAGR)
Newton grew from 85,146 –> 88,287 ( or at 0.259% CAGR)
Newton grew faster than Massachusetts. Can we just accept this as a fact.
PS – Still waiting for @THM to educate me on his sources, per my post above.
@Barry – I wasn’t exactly stretching for my examples. They affect a lot more people than you seem to think. And please note that I wasn’t saying what, if anything, we should do for people – just pointing out that just because you could do it doesn’t mean that everyone (or even most people) can.
As to moving to Framingham – for those who work in Boston, the difference in distances and commuting times isn’t trivial. Not asking you to cry over it, just saying that even if one thinks that Newton and Framingham are equally nice places to live with equally good schools, that doesn’t mean they serve everyone equally well.
I understand that some in this thread feel its more important to discuss the substantive issue of housing affordability, but I have to push back on the notion that three words “import the poor” are beside the point or a strawman. Those words struck me like a body blow and I have had a hard time letting it go. I’ll admit to it being an emotional response, but I think the words were chosen for emotional effect.
Contrary to several comments above, its not about whether we use “poor” or “economically disadvantaged”. Since when has there been any shame in having come from poor roots? The American Dream celebrates rags to riches. It can be a badge of honor.
It’s the “import” part, how callously transactional, commodifying, and dehumanizing that term is when used in reference to a class of people, which made me recoil. More disturbingly, the term was not being used to characterize the writer’s position, but to characterize those who support projects like Austin Street. The writer is not just using a reprehensible phrase; she’s imputing it to others to paint them in a cold and cynical light. It’s no coincidence that those three words “import the poor” also make for a phrase of choice in the anti-immigration rants of the Tea Party.
Words matter, even three small words. Readers of Joseph Conrad know what three little words can reveal about the real perspective of a writer of an otherwise unimpeachable essay.
I’m looking at a US Census figure (on Census.gov) for Massachusetts for 2000 that says 6,349,097. This appears everywhere I have looked so far. (Just one example: https://www.census.gov/census2000/pdf/ma_tab_1.PDF ) I also used a US census interim estimate for the 2006 figure I cited.
You are citing 2010 data as 2000 data (according to your own link) and then attacking me for supposedly spreading misinformation? Oy vey.
In any case, based on the depth of all my comments above, I think it would be obvious that I not only accept that Newton would grow faster than the state as a whole but also that it should.
Last night I actually wrote, in a comment above, “yes there are a lot of cities and towns in the state, but we happen to be right near the heart of the state’s economic activity, so it’s not surprising that a higher concentration of people would want/try to live here.”
@ Fignewtonville,
“Tax tear downs and larger homes”,.. ! Great idea ! At least for the time a developer utilizes that property for business purposes. And then tax his opportunity profits !
And :
Real Estate developement is a business activity. We tax business real estate at twice the residential rate. What’s the difference between a businessman owning an office building and being taxed at a business rate on that property, from an owner of a 2 family home or a home with an accessory apartment enjoying the fruits of his real estate investment ? That owner is writing off ( depreciating ) his property for tax purposes just like the office bldg owner. It’s time to tax properly to pay off OPEB.
As I commented above, I completely disagree with Kathleen Kouril-Grieser and don’t believe that the Newton Village Alliance addresses even in a small way the issue of affordable housing in the city. I believe their focus on stopping nearly every type of new residential development will exacerbate an already serious problem.
That being said, I think Greg pulling those three words out of her editorial and making that the headline is a bit unfair.
Sometimes its easy to just get entrenched in whatever your opinion is on a certain subject. Then someone says something and it just all clicks. You realize that your dearly held opinion is all wrong.
That just happened to me this evening after reading Barry Cohen’s comment above. This isn’t complicated. If you don’t have some crazy money, Newton’s no place for you. Face facts. There are places you belong and Newton’s not one of them. As Barry Cohen so eloquently says “problem solved. Why does everyone have to live in Newton?”
As for all this handwringing about OPEB obligations, just get rid of all those middle class families using these expensive public schools. If you can’t afford private schools why do you have to live in Newton? problem solved
@Barry Cohen has hit the nail on the head once again. The elephant in the room is the looming civil rights issue that nobody wants to talk about. “where are all those high earners supposed to live who are buying the so-called McMansions? They deserve a place in Newton too, don’t they? You want to keep them out?”
We have a limited number of homes in Newton and setting aside a few as specifically designated for people of limited means is a slap in the face to the deserving wealthy who are viciously victimized by these classist attitudes.
@Bravo Jerry!
@mgwa – I’m glad to hear you’re on board with Barry and me. I’ll send you one of these lovely T shirts
For too long we’ve been turning our backs on the wealthy among us. If you were to walk a mile in their shoes you’d see just how difficult life can be while suffering the indignities that come with great wealth.
Yes the poor may not intentionally be trying to harm the wealthy, but their indifference to the the most invulnerable’s suffering has got to stop.
As Barry Cohen points out “there are many towns around that can accommodate people of limited financial means” so why do they insist on wanting to live with us where they clearly don’t belong?
Even if the poor are too callous to be concerned about the housing pressures of their wealthier neighbors, both they and we would all be much happier if they go back to where they belong “to be close to friends or relatives.” rather than sticking out like a sore thumb here in Newton.
Export the poor!! – “problem solved!“
Notwithstanding that “import the poor” is completely beside the point of the editorial, let’s indulge a bit in this anti-immigrant Tea Party rhetoric, as it provides a useful lens in which to view the Austin Street Project. In this framing, the ASP will serve as Newton’s main Port of Entry. It works pretty well, with the nearby rail line that can efficiently deliver the poor. It also allows us to contain the problem of the incoming poor and avoid having to spread resources thin by dealing with some of our border issues with towns like Waltham and Watertown, where we might otherwise have to consider building a fence.
If this sounds concerning, rest assured its not the perspective of the editorial writer. Indeed, its just the opposite. Her point is that importing the poor is her opponents’ objective.
I agree that while the editorial captured eyes, we need a more thoughtful conversation about housing here in Newton and regionally. The simple truth is that it is becoming more and more expensive to live in the greater Boston area – and that’s because of a) the region’s continued economic growth and b) our regionally poor land use and housing policies coupled with poor transportation planning and investment.
On top of the issues already addressed above, to not do anything has an impact on families, workers, local businesses, the local economy, and – eventually – the regional economy as a whole.,
We know we can do something about the housing policy here in Newton through zoning reform and through public private partnerships of the kind typified by Austin Street. To create a situation where the only answer is “no” removes us from the conversation of how to positively address the problem.
Jerry and etc.,
I hope you’re having fun twisting my words and then laughing about them with that liberal air of arrogance and smugness that says all the world has to bow to your ideas of right and wrong.
I can’t afford to live in a typical house in Dover, nor can probably you. Should we invade Dover and force them to convert some of those 5000 sq ft houses on 3 acres of land to multi-family dwellings or break up the lots into 1/4 acre plots on which we put 1200 sq ft ranch homes?
You are, it seems to me, an advocate of the views of Occupy Wall Street, Liz Warren, Barack Obama, etc., who think that, if your wealth is above some threshold, like 1%, you are automatically evil, no matter how you worked to get there or how talented you are, and that, if you are on the lower end of the wealth scale, you are a saint, no matter what crimes you commit or how much you loaf around while others work, and society needs to give to you without limit.
I don’t subscribe to that philosophy.
Barry I’m with you 100%
yes to the “talented” “hard working” wealthy
no to the “loafing” “criminal” poor.
Barry is absolutely right that the words of the founder of this fledgling social movement should not be edited and twisted so here are links to the full text of those seminal documents.
Export the Poor by Barry Cohen
The forgotten oppressed by Barry Cohen
Export the Poor! problem solved”
A match has been lit! A movement has been born -“Export the poor!!”
Barry & I are hard at work organizing the Million Hand March. We’re calling on the wealthiest of our brothers and sisters to send their hired hands to march for housing justice.
We’ll be marching to Newton Public Housing headquarters to demand that all of their multi-unit housing complexes, teeming with huddled masses, be immediately vacated, razed and re-purposed as single mega-estates. Preventing these large parcels, in some of the most expensive zip codes, to be kept out of the hands of those shopping for trophy homes is a crime against humanity.
Export the Poor! “problem solved”
@Jerry: I’m so grateful that somebody is finally standing up for the rights of the persecuted 1%. You are very brave. I’m happy to write a check from my trust fund to support your cause.
I think our ultimate question is: what kind of city do we want to be? Do we want to be a city with a vibrant, diverse population? Or do we want to be a homogeneous, wealthy enclave?
I recently read a wonderful article on Politico about how Evanston, Ill remade itself through transit oriented design. I’ll post it later on a separate thread, but the bottom line was that a suburb that was so perfect it was used in a number of John Hughes movies as a stand-in for “America,” needed to rebuild itself. It did so by focusing on its downtown and creating what we’re talking about with Austin Street, though more of it and on a larger scale.
I’m right there with you, Jerry. Just post the time and place.
It’ is refreshing to finally get this movement going and talk about the real issues. I adore the 1% who are all talented and “worked hard to get there.” I want to make sure they find land to build spectacular homes in Newton. Their talent and hard work are much more impressive than the plebeians’ whose talents are used to “commit crimes”, “loaf around” and be perceived as saints. And whose only hard work is to “collect all that society gives … without limit.” To do that, we must Export the poor! But be sure to keep the buses running to import them to work for the wealthy and take them home again daily.
And maybe next we will invade Dover.
Gail Spector & Marti – thanks for your kind words but your gratitude is misplaced. I’m just Barry’s loyal acolyte. He’s the visionary who’d launched this long overdue movement.
Grab your pitchforks! Meet us on the ramparts! We’re going to take back this damn city.
Export the Poor! problem solved”
KKG is adept at using several tried and true tactics to campaign for her candidates and issues. There are no slip ups in her word choice. She uses her article to bring up actual issues then conflates them to admonish current board members and assure readers that her candidates will correct them. It doesn’t matter that her conclusions don’t fit the issues or that even the issues themselves are contradictory.
Anecdotes, with precise wording, grab attention because they present real problems that readers want solved for varying reasons. Readers are hooked. Next take the problems presented and mix them up with others, adding some that have nothing to do with them, but can seem like they do. Then throw in all the issues you are against as causes of those problems, point out incumbents as promoting those bad things (regardless of a connection), and finally promote candidates who will fix everything.
Throw in words that attract extreme controversial attention to keep the discussion going. Hopefully someone will be outraged enough to “attack” you so your supporters and those who see an underdog being “attacked” will chastise the “attackers” so the convoluted argument stays in the background.
See KY clerk
You nailed it Marti. I think Kathleen knew exactly what she was doing when she chose the words “import poor people.” The only thing wrong with Greg’s choice of those words in the headline is that he may have played right into her hands.
I feel like “The Spook Who Sat Near The Door” on this blog.
So, I said it before and it’s worth repeating
“I hope you’re having fun twisting my words and then laughing about them with that liberal air of arrogance and smugness that says all the world has to bow to your ideas of right and wrong.”
Nobody here says anything even close to intelligent. It’s bleeding heart liberal nonsense, and the smugness and belittling of opposition that we so often hear from Obama, Warren, Clinton and the rest of the crowd. And you are marching in lock step with that nonsense. Have fun, children, but don’t say I didn’t say so when you can’t figure out why your taxes are so high, your personal freedom is so limited, and the smart and competent people in the US start emigrating to other countries that haven’t become like us.
Howard, everything that happens becomes a racial issue to you. You have zero credibility as far as I am concerned, but I’m sure you are the hero of the smug liberal crowd generally represented here.
Wow, Mr. Cohen, sir…if I may say…I mean, I don’t know if it’s okay to address you, seeing’s how I’m one of them poor people trying to make a life in Newton. (I wouldn’t qualify myself as a “criminal” though I’m young so I suppose I have some time yet, and I have to admit I DO like to loaf around on Sunday mornings – I’ll be sure to stop that straight away, sir.) I guess I’m not worthy of your fair city (although I also work here) until I pull myself up by my bootstraps (once I can afford some boots that is) so I suppose I should just be going now. Thanks for educating me on where I “belong,” so sorry I’ve been out of place. Do you think it’s okay if I continue to still work in Newton? I mean, I’ll be real quiet, you’ll barely know I’m here…
@Gail
Not to worry. Kathleen did a great job with her column, and got her message out loud and clear. Greg can’t help himself attempting to humiliate her, and he is probably doing very well with the extra revenue generated by the ads 😉
And I can’t help myself but wonder if Jerry got his idea for his bright T shirts down at Dun Gahgerins last night (I’m presuming it was a little a lively down there last night).
Heather, great reply!!
Marti?
Great reply? It’s a continuation of the nonsense and mocking. No-one here wants to address the simple issues I’ve brought up, but would rather twist around what you know I mean to say which disagrees with your point of view, and would rather mock me because I’m not part of the Amen Corner. You’re really not nice people when faced with diversity of opinion, are you?
I like Newton, the way it is, not the way you want to re-make it. That’s why I’ve lived here a long time. I like seeing those big houses go up even though I can’t afford them. It makes Newton a nicer place and increases the tax base.
Hmm…I’d actually say I’m a pretty nice person when faced with diversity. Not so much when faced with discrimination, however. And it certainly doesn’t make me feel good to know that people would rather I not live in this city (where I’ve lived for 13 years now, by the way) because I don’t meet a certain income bracket. My grandmother lived in Newton back in the 1920s. I gather she would find things here now pretty different from back then. You may like Newton the way it is now, but as the saying goes, nothing’s permanent but change.
As one of the few people who is likely to personally understand the entire spectrum of arguments in this debate, I can assure anyone who reverts to character degradation that you are only making the situation worse. As someone who was raised to treat others as you expect to be treated, I simply cannot understand the lack of civility that I’ve seen in my time following this discussion here on V14.
@Heather: As someone who grew up on welfare and in Newton public housing with a single teenaged mom who served a three year prison sentence when I was a teenager, I find your sarcasm to be deeply offensive as you mockingly trivialize what it was like growing up in such circumstances in Newton.
Have you spent time working with kids from Newton’s public housing? If so, you would know that most of us have a chip on our shoulders as we don’t feel “worthy” of living in Newton as the psychological effect of being so poor in such a rich city negates the development of self-esteem and confidence. Furthermore, you would understand that many of us are so poor that we in fact don’t have money to buy those boots that you reference in your comment. In fact, I still remember when DSS (now DCF) would come by on holidays with the promise of new boots or a winter jacket. (Of course they never actually followed through.) Growing up poor in Newton makes you feel out of place, every single day of your life.
In addition, I’d like to point out that Kathleen was one of the few people on V14 who personally reached out to me when she learned about what I experienced growing up in Newton. Aside from her latest article, which highlights many important issues, her outreach was genuine and much appreciated.
Finally, I’d like to point out one more simple fact. The end result of creating luxury apartments at a 3 : 1 ratio to subsidized apartments is a Newton that becomes richer and more homogenous. Our city government can do so much to help those living in poverty in Newton, yet it seems to me that our current elected officials spend their time moving us in the wrong direction. I believe in leadership by example. When one considers that the Mayor unilaterally pulled the plug on Engine Six and decided to not choose a housing option for Newtonville that would have offered 100% affordable housing, a reasonable person should question what’s going on behind the scenes.
@Tom Davis – You are absolutely right. Creating luxury/subsidized apartments at Austin St at a 3:1 ratio is a pretty feeble response to the housing issues we face. The alternative vision that NVA is advocating is to build none, an even worse response.
As for building a 100% affordable housing project at Austin St, as far as I know that has never been an option since there is no way to fund it. The limited subsidized housing in the current Austin St plan is entirely funded by those luxury apartments. Without the market rate apartments, there are no subsidized apartments.
As for NVA’s position in regards to subsidized housing, as far as I know, NVA has not supported any project currently in-progress or proposed that includes subsidized housing. I don’t believe that’s the motivation for the NVA’s position, but regardless of their motivation the effect of their agenda’s the same – no new subsidized housing to be built in Newton. If I missed a project that they have supported, please correct me.
Kathleen Kouril Grieser’s editorial contained three poignant anecdotes of people in Newton struggling with housing. I’ve read and then re-read her piece and have yet to find anything in it that hints at anything she’s proposing that would help any of those people. I’ve read every editorial she’s written and I’ve scoured the NVA’s web site, the only recommendations that I see in any of it is “stop building new housing”. Presumably what she’s saying is that if we stop building housing, somehow the normal market will sort everything out. If the NVA has any other plan/programs/recommendations for trying to address the housing problems in Newton, I haven’t seen them.
Tom, I’m glad being gifted at running helped you change your situation and become a lawyer. People have different ways of dealing with adversity. It’s unkind to criticize Heather’s way of dealing with discrimination and as far as you know she could have grown up similarly to you. In fact, at this point you are much better off than she is so why would you treat her badly. Maybe she isn’t getting the help she needs right now.
I’m starting to doubt your sincerity.
Metrowest submitted a proposal that was all affordable, I believe. I know it came with a letter from the Village Bank for partial funding and they’ve been successful at raising funds repeatedly. It was discarded quickly because of funding, but I really don’t understand how the decisions on each proposal were made. The explanations are somewhat confusing.
Here’s a bit of the non-sensical double talk on this issue from the NVA web site:
The existence of the 40 B program or the elimination of the 40B program has absolutely nothing to do with any other efforts to “allow our community to address the housing affordability needs of seniors and others”. For the many years that the 40B program has been in place, the city was completely free to do whatever it wanted or deemed necessary to address those needs.
Now love it or hate it, the 40B program has been the only significant provider of new subsidized housing in Newton in recent years. If 40B were to end tomorrow why should we imagine that the city would on its own suddenly begin to create new housing when we haven’t been up to now. If the city were to build new housing where would the very large sums of money come from to fund it? And if there were money and political will to build new city owned subsidized housing why would anyone expect the NVA to support the effort when they oppose all new residential construction in the city.
Heather, really?
“And it certainly doesn’t make me feel good to know that people would rather I not live in this city (where I’ve lived for 13 years now, by the way) because I don’t meet a certain income bracket.”
I’m not sure where you came up with this. You’re here, obviously, and no-one is saying you shouldn’t live here. If you knew my background or my income bracket, you wouldn’t say that.
What I’ve said before and what I’ll say simply again is I’m opposed to the people here who want Newton to be the solution to everyone’s problems, even if it makes no sense, and even if those problems might not exist if people looked at other less expensive towns. I didn’t move to Newton until I could afford to, and just barely. I didn’t expect anyone to create special housing for me. If I never could have afforded to come here, so be it. I wouldn’t cry about it. I can’t afford Weston or Dover. Other places are nice too, as Geoff told us about Framingham.
I also lived a long time in Brighton. Much of Brighton is a mix of really nice big old homes (not where I lived) and dense multi-family dwellings. I feel bad for the people who had those nice homes in nice neighborhoods and watched as developers, probably simply for money and not public spirit, put up those apartment buildings in those nice areas. There are better ways to deal with housing. I don’t want to see Newton “Brightonized”, which is what many people here want to do.
@Marti: I can assure you that Heather wouldn’t write what she did if she grew up similarly to me. And regarding sincerity, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. If we want to talk about perspective on these issues, let’s clarify the fact that I’m every bit as involved with poverty as I was as a kid. I’m not a lawyer as I only recently graduated from law school. In fact, I’m still poor by any definition, and I don’t have the family support that many in Newton have. In regard to perspective, my uncle died homeless two weeks ago from a drug/alcohol overdose. He was found unresponsive by the police on the street without any ID or money. Furthermore, my mom has been either routinely homeless, in prison or in-and-out of battered women’s shelters ever since I first began living on my own at fifteen-years-old.
@Jerry: I know very little about the NVA. My only point is that Kathleen raises some good points in her latest article.
@Tom You know nothing about me or my current and/or former circumstances living in Newton. I am incredibly offended by the assumptions you’ve made about me. Trivializing? How do you know I don’t live it Every Single Day, Tom? Because I’m living in Newton so I can’t be “that poor?” Are you making that assumption now? You refer to having a chip on your shoulder, us vs. them, right? How do you know I’m not part of the us? You don’t. You don’t know how I put food on my table or whether or not I can actually buy boots. I’m not willing to share my circumstances on a public forum, but I will tell you that now I am pissed off. The more I learn about people here, the more I look forward to leaving in a few years, and people like Barry will be so happy to see me go since I don’t “fit the Newton mold.” So much for championing the poor, Tom. Thanks for your support. You think I don’t understand about not fitting in? I understand it All Too Well. I’m going to sign off now because I’m so angry right now that it has been a battle to keep this response even remotely civil. Don’t you dare lecture me about poverty and its effects, Tom, when you have NO IDEA about my life.
@Heather
Please try not to be so offended with what people say here. With the election a week away this thread was designed to be what it is, but with that said I’m not so sure it went the direction intended. I suspect that may well be because some of regulars are running for Charter commission and are being nice at the moment!
As you can see a column was published and people have looked for every angle of attack they can find. A few weeks ago the Mayor announced a “plan” to fix the cities billion dollar issue – with no meat on the bones and little if anything was said, other than congratulations for having a plan!
I believe this thread has outlived its usefulness. Comments are closed.