Although there may be those who dismiss these kids’ views because they don’t reside in Newtonville, here’s an editorial about the Austin Street project from the Newton South High School student paper, The Lion’s Roar.
Lion’s Roar weighs in on Austin Street project
by Greg Reibman | Oct 10, 2015 | Newton | 85 comments
Greg, thank you for publishing this paper by the Lion’s Roar. It appears to be well written from a grammatical perspective. I will leave the grading of the paper to the English teachers that frequent V14.
It appears the author learned about the US Constitution in his/her US history class. The First Amendment’s protection of free speech is very important in our democracy. However, s/he may have missed the topic of libel in their civic class. Now that the author is writing public documents, it would be in his/her best interest to learn about the legal aspects of libel.
From the article: “But what’s truly disconcerting about the NVA and its supporters is that they never articulate the real reason for their passionate opposition: Affordable housing brings the “wrong” kind of people to Newton.”
It would be helpful if the author would cite the source of the facts that support this statement. I have yet to see any documents published by the NVA group that espouse this position.
Opinions in a student paper are acceptable and encouraged. False accusations towards others can lead to some serious repercussions for the author, the paper, the school, and maybe even the SC.
It reads like a campaign piece for Auchincloss to me. Yes it definitely takes the NVA to task but I think libel is pushing it. Comments on V14 and even, I believe, in a Tab editorial have been just as critical. They began their fight against Austin Street to keep parking and build a park. I don’t know if they have ulterior motives about the “wrong” people though. Anyone who questions the project has been accused of that, many of us unjustly. I would agree though that polemics is a good description of their methods.
It brings up Auchincloss twice and ends with vote for the right candidate for town council.
I am beyond delighted to see the Lion’s Roar take an editorial stance on a civic issue that does not center on the schools, and regardless of the opinions, I applaud those who took the time to understand the issues.
This is not even close to libelous. It’s the Lion’s Roar interpretations of NVA’s motives based on what its editorial board has observed. Many others have come to the same conclusions.
Patrick,
When I read the editorial, I understood the use of quotations around the word wrong to mean rhetorical hyperbole. It was clear to me, at least, that the editorial isn’t stating that this is a stated position of NVA, but rather to be understood by the reader as figurative language. This is an opinion piece discussing the motivations of a group which has placed itself front and center in the middle of a matter of significant public concern. I gather that NVA one will never find a quote attributable to NVA that affordable housing brings the “wrong” kind of people to Newton. However, to quote the seminal First Amendment case of NY Times v. Sullivan, “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate”.
What Lisap and Gail said.
But also: While I’ve had policy disagreements with the NVA, the NVA is made up of individuals who care about our community. I can’t imagine these folks would take some high schoolers to court for expressing their own passion for their community.
So can we get back to discussing the editorial now?
How does a high school kid connect affordable housing with “the wrong type of people coming to Newton?”
I think it was well written, I am ecstatic that they actually wrote it, but I’m afraid it wasn’t written totally by high school students….maybe lions roar advisor or parents.
@Tom: If I’m not mistaken, you don’t have any kids right?
Many of Newton high school kids I’ve have the privilege to get to know in recent years, are smart, passionate about social justice and capable of coming to their own conclusions. The one thing they’re not is willing to do have adults put words in their mouths.
Tom: Really? Please read the Lions Roar sometime and then talk to some teenagers.
Wow. How does a 68 unit project with ONLY 17 units – 25% affordable with 5,000 square feet of retail (which is basically similar to a friendly 40B proposal and which is the minimum ) be equated with a “social justice” issue? This is not about the denial and shut out of a proposal for a homeless shelter at Engine 6 in Waban. This is about the lease of city-owned property to an entity who among other respondents put forth a proposal to an RFP – an entity and project SOLELY selected by the Mayor – NOT by the Board of Aldermen as has been intimated by some organizations. The “proponents” of the project are no less guilty of “polarizing” this project than the “opponents”. There are plenty of reasons to support this project as there are reasons to oppose this project. Let’s put this project into perspective.
This editorial is… interesting. I will limit my comment to this:
“the city rejected a larger bid for the site in favor of ASP’s proposal.”
The city also rejected a smaller bid, which would have provided 25 units, 100% affordable, 3 stories high.
I am making a simple request. I want the Lions Roar’s editorial board to provide instances where the NVA , or any individual designated as a spokesperson for the NVA, has provided a comment or document where they have articulated the real reason for their passionate opposition to the ASP is that affordable housing brings the “wrong” kind of people to Newton. Lisap, that is what is written in the editorial with no room for an alternate interpretation.
It should be easy to provide instances since, according to Gail, many others have come to the same conclusion. Apparently, I have not read, heard, or seen what so many others have. I tend to be a logical thinker. I would like to know what people have read, heard, and/or seen that lead people to observe that the NVA wants to exclude the “wrong” kind of people from Newton. If instances can not be provided, then I would say this is an attempt at smearing the image and reputation of the NVA.
Greg and Gail,
So I have to have a teenager to know how they think? I was a teeneager once…once. And although not all teenagers are the same I can tell you that none of my friends (or myself) presumed to know the fears of the people who lived next door to people in affordable housing. If you can’t see that this ideology came from an adult then you should meet WC Fields.
Why in the world would a teenager ever think of what a neighbor of an affordable housing unit think? I can’t believe you can’t see through this. Unbelievable. That being said I am done with this issue.
This is how ridiculous you guys sound:
How does a teenager go from affordable housing to knowing how the opponent of affordable housing go? Wouldn’t the child ask a teacher or a guidance counselor or parent? How can a child with limited life experience know how a neighbor feels without asking anyone? Yes, this was written plainly by a teenager who knows everything. It was a terrific article, though. The part with knowing how the opponents feel was definitely helped out by an adult. This was the last post.
A few things here:
First of all, let me just say that we should remember it is a high school newspaper. This isn’t the Tab, or the Globe.
Second, I happen to disagree with the Lion’s Roar editorial board’s jump in logic. NVA opposes the project. The project contains a sizeable portion of affordable housing. [LOGIC GAP] Therefore, NVA must oppose affordable housing. Before anyone jumps down my throat, note my addition of [LOGIC GAP]. Is it possible that some members of NVA oppose these projects for the reason stated. Sure. But that hasn’t been my experience in talking to them. Affordable housing seems to not be on their radar screens, for good or bad. Mostly it is the additions to the schools, the size of the building, the change in character from a density perspective. Some of that may be code I guess (I’ve heard a few of the “urbanization” of Newton discussions on the blog). But I don’t see it, and lord knows I’m not part of the NVA. Their opposition is broader than the Lion’s Roar gives them credit for.
Third, I think the Lion’s Roar is probably throwing in the various discussions of Engine 6 into the mix without discussing it. I honestly don’t remember the NVA’s position on Engine 6, but I do think some of those discussions were unpleasant and very against homeless or formerly homeless in Waban as the “wrong” type of people. Property values were mentioned many times. Again, not NVA in my mind, but I can see how the high school editorial board can equate one controversial issue and bring the discussion to the Austin Street discussion. Some of the players are the same. Again, don’t agree with it, I think Engine 6 was hyperlocal, not city-wide. I can’t remember if NVA or any of its principals wrote editorials or gave interviews on Engine 6. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can let us know.
Fourth, Tom, no way this came from a parent IMHO. I was a student journalist many moons ago, I’d have rather cut off my writing hand then let a parent or teacher write for me. Doesn’t mean the kids are hopeless idealist people, but I don’t buy the adult putting words in their mouths one bit.
Fifth, Amy, to some of us it is a social justice issue as one small part. I like the affordable housing portion. I would have supported the all affordable housing applicants. It matters to me that there will be a significant amount of affordable units. Just because it is not a social justice issue for you, doesn’t mean that for others it is a big deal to get those units. By your analysis, 40B wouldn’t be a social justice discussion either, nor would all of the engine 6 crowd be coming to the Austin Street meeting. It isn’t just the Lion’s Roar that views it as a social justice issue, they just chose to make it front and center.
Sixth, Patrick, I appreciate why you’d be angry. As I said, I don’t agree with the editorial. But I feel my response in your shoes would be to write a letter to the editor, explaining for the high schoolers why they made a jump in logic and unfairly maligned NVA. Here is where you lost me.
You state:
“However, s/he may have missed the topic of libel in their civic class. Now that the author is writing public documents, it would be in his/her best interest to learn about the legal aspects of libel.”
and
“Opinions in a student paper are acceptable and encouraged. False accusations towards others can lead to some serious repercussions for the author, the paper, the school, and maybe even the SC.”
So your post equates an opinion given in a high school editorial as a libelous act, and you warn/threaten regarding the serious repercussions regarding “false accusations”. You clearly disagree with their opinion. I understand that it is personal and that you care about the NVA. But it isn’t libel. Editorial writers are given a very wide leeway to write editorials that stitch together fact and opinion. It is clearly identified as an opinion. Libel requires a statement of fact that is untrue and harmful to a person’s reputation. It is not an accusation, it is a opinion of the writer based on the NVA’s opposition and the inclusion of the affordable housing in the project. Again, I don’t agree with it, but it isn’t libelous. Plus, I’m guessing NVA wouldn’t want to go through discovery….
For the record I’m also guessing that the Lion’s Roar knows exactly what libel is, and has had access to multiple seminars and journalistic folks who have told them exactly what I said above. For the record I’m also not a huge fan of threatening high school students you don’t agree with, when the issue is an editorial, even if I’m not a fan of their jump in logic. I hope you write a letter to the editor and the Lion’s Roar should print it. But let’s let the libel discussion end here.
@Fignewtonville, Couldn’t have said it better myself!
fignewtonville, your comments are very well expressed and appreciated. You write that “Editorial writers are given a very wide leeway to write editorials that stitch together fact and opinion.” I agree with that, and I am asking for the editorial board to supply the facts that they stitched together with their opinion. I have yet to be exposed to any NVA generated information that ties them to being against people that would benefit from having affordable housing. If there are no facts to dispute my position, then I stand by my position.
I do not take the document personally. It is a high school paper; an academic exercise that Greg brought to a public venue. I do tend to agree with many of the NVA’s positions. Yet it really does bothers me when anyone on any side of an issue resorts to such inflammatory verbiage without adequate proof provided.
Regarding the libel issue, that is for the NVA to consider; it is not my reputation being smeared. I too doubt the NVA would pursue a legal course of action. Yet at some point the author of this article needs to learn that such documents do not help a community make positive steps forward. My words were offered as advice and a warning; no threat. Maybe the superintendent could write a letter to the Lions Roar stating his position on inflammatory editorials attempting to divide the community.
Patrick, I think where we differ is the purpose and role of an editorial. My view is that editorial writers are given wide leeway to express their opinions. You acknowledge that, but you want the facts that buttress that opinion. In other words, you want them to show their work and not just their conclusion. But editorials can take into account the writer’s feelings/beliefs/conversations. The reality in my experience is that the “show your work” argument is not the newspaper editorial way.
To be honest, I’m wondering if the Lion’s Roar folks are reading this. I hope they are, when I was their age I had a similar situation pop up due to an editorial. I remember being surprised others were considering my words, and I remember being shocked at some of the consequences of those words, albeit unintended and unknown at the time of the writing. We get older, we get more experience. I wouldn’t write the same editorial today without additional thought, but I’d probably still write it in the end. Perhaps I’d show my work a bit more too.
Appreciate the discussion. Good night to all.
Really excited to see people in high school engaged on such a local civic issue, as has been said previously.
I know some people have really strong feelings on this topic, but hope we can refrain from assigning ulterior motives and conspiracy theories about ghost writers when we should be giving full credit to the students who decided to take a stand in their community, whether you ultimately agree with their position or not.
Fig, I hope you, Greg and Gail are right.
Patrick writes:
“Yet at some point the author of this article needs to learn that such documents do not help a community make positive steps forward.”
Patrick, the answer to this is in the simple glory of the First Amendment which fosters an open, robust marketplace for the free exchange of ideas! Some of those ideas may be bolstered by fact, many by opinion, supposition, and inference. Indeed some may even prove to be untrue. But it is in the rough and tumble exchange of ideas that we hopefully find the truth. The First Amendment isn’t qualified to opinions that are fact checked for veracity. Instead, with few narrow exceptions, we do protect falsehood in order to protect the wider ambit of speech. We do this not merely to prevent self-censorship but also because false beliefs have value in debate as a step to the truth. Or, as J. S. Mill wrote far better than I ever shall:
“If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”
Lisap, fignewtonville, and now I will include Marti since I am about to quote this blogger,
Your comments have influenced me to do additional thinking relative to my position and comments. And since comments are a verbal or written form of an opinion, I guess I am expressing opinions thus freeing me from providing substantiating facts.
Since facts are not required content of an expressed opinion, then it would help me if the Lions Roar author could at least provide expanded details on his/her thought process that enabled him/her to make the observation that the NVA is against people who will benefit from potential Newton provided affordable housing. Now I am just asking for a thought process. That should be even easier.
I will say I am now more confused since both fignewtonville and Lisap have made strong arguments that expressed opinions do not require substantiated facts as a foundation. Yet, Marti demands in another V14 thread on the ASP topic that Alderwomen Sangiolo and Norton “if you are opposed to this project, fight it with facts.” So which is it? Do we use facts to make an argument or just a series of opinions? Are our BOA members being held to a higher standard than the general public? If so, why? Are adults held to a higher standard than upper-class high school students? Again, why? At what age do we finally say to our students entering adulthood that words have consequences? (Sarcastic comment to follow: Does the author get a trophy for writing this document?)
Lisap, your more liberal interpretation of our First Amendment has helped me better understand why we have so much disagreement and conflict now in our society. It has been an evolutionary condition, which I believe has been led by our politicians. Yes, our politicians at all levels are actually leading us; unfortunately towards a society severely divided. Members of both parties are showing there is no penalty for expressing inflammatory opinions not based on truth and facts. There is no penalty, actually they are rewarded, if the politicians are being re-elected. If it works for them, why not for the general citizenry?
Back to the ASP; if we are to move forward to a better community, then we need to establish those things that are common ground between the sides regarding this project. There may not be a lot of common ground, yet at least it would enable people to begin discussing positive aspects of any potential project. Former Alderman Ken Parker understands the basic concept of win-win negotiating; he even chose the phrase as the name of his NewTV talk show. Perhaps the mayor should watch one of those episodes to begin to understand how a leader builds consensus for moving a project forward. JMO.
@Patrick: You are distorting Lisap’s point, purposefully I believe.
You got this thread off to an unfortunate start, I believe, by suggesting the editorial was libelous. Lisap and other disagreed with you on the legal grounds. You chose to frame that as folks saying informed opinions don’t matter. They do. And I don’t see anyone saying they don’t. All I see is folks expressing the view that, legally, speech and that editorial is protected.
So how about if we shift the conversation away from whether or not one believes the motives suggested by the editorial apply to the NVA as opposed to whether or not the editorial is “lawfully” entitled to express that view?
Good idea, Greg. I think there are a few related questions that should be posed, based on what Lions Roar is charging:
1. Has the Austin Street project, in fact, become a “referendum over affordable housing’s place in Newton?”
2. Is there validity in the claim that the NVA and its supporters oppose the project because it would bring the “wrong” type of people to Newton? Is intolerance really an issue here?
3. If Question 2 is categorically false, is NVA sending a message that is being misinterpreted? Or are pro-Austin St. forces at work here trying to discredit NVA? Or both? Neither? All of the above, including Question 2?
There are more questions that others can raise.
There have been teenagers interested in civic engagement throughout most of history. I certainly was in the 60’s and my children were the 90’s. Not all teenagers of course but those in journalism, some of those with civically minded parents, some who have personal reasons and some who just seem to have been born to it. Today’s teens have incredible access to information so it’s even easier to get involved. These editors can read comments on V14 and the Tab blog on just about any subject they are interested in to get a feel for opinions on both sides; they can look up websites and city documents.
I know teens can make inferences and draw their own conclusions. They are certainly capable of the work necessary to write that editorial. I know a thirteen yo eight grader who just wrote a well thought out, researched and nicely written position paper on the use of stem cells for use in a debate. It’s best not to underestimate what teens can do.
I’m glad they are interested.
Hi all,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. We appreciate you taking the time to consider what we wrote, no matter where you come down on the issue.
Normally, we would let our editorial speak for itself, but we think a couple points need clarifying.
@Marti: This editorial was not intended to act as a de facto endorsement of Jake Auchincloss. While we thought his comments on the debate in general have been insightful, we also firmly endorsed the Austin St. project, which he opposes.
@Patrick: As fignewtonville speculated, we know exactly what libel is. That’s kind of our job. You ask that we provide evidence of the NVA’s attitude, but in response we would point you to the section of the article that you yourself quoted. We write, “they *never* articulate the real reason for their passionate opposition.” We go on to explain where this extrapolation has come from: NVA writes on their website that “when people move to Newton they are becoming part of an established community. They value and expect stability in the character of our neighborhoods.” If you disagree with the editorial, fine.
@fignewtonville: You are right that there is a logic gap, though we don’t think it’s a very big one. The sentence from NVA’s website quoted above screams NIMBYism (which we are indeed capable of identifying on our own, Tom) of the kind that killed the Engine 6 project, which you correctly suggested was at the front of our minds when writing this editorial. We are not the first to suggest this. Rev. Howard Haywood compared Austin St. to an affordable housing project in the late ‘60s in a recent TAB column:
“As the approval process languidly moved through bureaucratic political systems and the general public became more aware of the proposal, a not-so-open-minded picture began to emerge. Arguments were that the projects were too dense, would create serious traffic problems, overcrowd schools, and ‘change the character of the neighborhood.’ Does this sound familiar?”
@Amy: We disagree that this is not a social justice issue. As many have noted, the pace of affordable housing has slowed since Mayor Warren took office. While the mayor may bear much of the blame for this, or for selecting a dubious proposal, the best option right now is to approve Austin St. despite its flaws.
We did not mean to simplify the debate or typecast the opposition. We tried to make that clear in this paragraph:
“There is certainly room for nuance here. Some oppose Austin St. because they believe the project provides too little affordable housing. Others, like Auchincloss, oppose the terms of the deal. Yet the project ought to move forward regardless, if only because its failure to do so would give momentum to anti-development hardliners and discourage developers from attempting to build any more affordable housing in Newton.”
Reading this over again, we see now it we should have clarified that these aren’t the only valid reasons to oppose the project, and that certainly not all of those raising questions about logistics are hiding NIMBYism.
Thanks again to all who read and responded!
“I disagree with what you are saying but I support your right to say it.” Free Speech is a right, except under certain circumstances, that is a mainstay of our country. This applies to opinions, editorials and disrespectful garbage.
Patrick, I don’t see a contradiction. The Alders are welcome to their opinions but when acting in the capacity of elected officials discussing a project before voting to approve/disapprove it for the city, facts should be the only things that matter during the process.
Write a letter to the editor of the paper.
I agree completely with your last paragraph and have made similar comments. (Haven’t expressed an opinion as to what the mayor should do.)
I probably should ignore this but I think it is too bad Tom has not spoken to some of our students so I must attribute his comments to simple ignorance. I guess I am echoing others here by saying that we have many very engaged and knowledgeable students in the school and especially in the group working on the student papers. For the past several years I have been interviewing Newton students for admission to the University of Rochester. This includes a few recent editors, and I am always impressed by their accomplishments in and out of school. They demonstrate a broad knowledge of issues but locally and beyond Newton.
Greg, I am not trying to purposely distort Lisap’s point: I am trying to understand it. Lisap appears to support that expressing “false beliefs have value in debate as a step to the truth”. I do not agree with that position if that belief is offered knowing it is false and/or without a valid foundation.
Gail, now you are confusing me. Greg suggests shifting the conversation away from the discussion of the NVA’s motives and focusing on “whether or not the editorial is “lawfully” entitled to express that view”. You agree Greg has a good idea, then your questions #2 and #3 bring it right back to the NVA.
I, for one, have modified my opinion. I guess the Lions Roar has the legal right to express their observations without any supporting material. I will remind people that I started my first comment by saying it was a well written piece. And I also guess the NVA (or any other organization) has the right to protect its reputation even if that includes using appropriate legal instruments. JMO.
@Patrick: I was reading Greg’s suggestion for what I believed he meant to say instead of for what it did say (which didn’t make sense). I know Greg well enough to know that he wants to discuss the content of the editorial, not its right to exist.
Gail is correct. My bad. This is what I meant to say:
Apologies to all.
@Lions Roar: Welcome to Village 14.
Marti, we appear to have found some common ground. Maybe the principals involved with the ASP can follow suit.
Patrick,
Just to clarify, I’m not merely stating my own personal opinion here. I gave you language from NY Times v. Sullivan, a very significant First Amendment opinion written by the United States Supreme Court, as well as a philosophical explanation for the view embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court as stated by the esteemed philosopher, John Stuart Mill in his work, On Liberty.
@Greg,
My apologies for contributing to further derailment of the thread.
As soon as this project became the subject of vast discussion, supporters called those who questioned anything about it bigoted, morally corrupt, shameful people. I questioned a lot about the proposal and the methods used by our mayor and had to defend myself against those labels every time for a considerable length of time. I’m certainly not the only one. I think the name calling stopped after many people commented many, many times that the questions had nothing to do with affordable housing and in fact that was one of the few things we actually liked about the proposal and would like even more to be included. It still needs scrunity and good things have come from not blindly accepting the proposal without question.
I don’t personally know anyone in the NVA and don’t support them, but I’ve never read or listened to anything they’ve said that suggests to me they have an ulterior motive of prohibiting any particular type of people from living in Newton. That’s not to say that they don’t, but that I haven’t come to that conclusion myself. I don’t think they want any new people to move into Newton.
Gail, 1. No, I don’t think it has at all.
2. Not that I know of.
3. I don’t think many believe that of the NVA. They think they want no development.
The second part is intriguing. It’s likelihood of being true is higher. That goes back to what I said in the beginning, it seems more like a campaign editorial in support of a candidate who has sent mixed messages about Austin Street and development in general. Of course it also says something about why an editorial from the NSHS newspaper was posted for discussion and why the question of “motive” was just brought up again.
Obviously I read Greg’s post wrong too.
Several times this weekend I’ve had conversations with Newton residents who live both within Netwonville and outside its borders. In all cases they supported the Austin Street project (without getting into a discussion with me). Most have read the discussions, some are avid readers of this blog. None can really understand the opponent’s position.
That said, not one is willing to put their hand up and speak publicly about the issue because the opposition is so loud, they fear getting shouted down. Yes, they support it, but the emotional passion on the other side is so strong, that it’s easier just to stay quiet and vote.
With that in mind, a huge “Tip ‘o the Hat” to the Lion’s Roar for putting up their collective hand and taking a stand that, while popular, appears unpopular. It’s a difficult thing to do for reasons that are clearly apparent in this thread.
If these were my students (and I do mentor a high school team, as many of you know) I’d be very proud of them.
I would add that despite my pleas, few opponents have offered up a clear vision for the property. So far I’ve heard:
Make it a park
Keep it as it is; and
Um…. that’s it.
These students ARE who we want to keep in this city, They are our future workers. They are what we want. If, as Charlie likes to point out, we should listen to the local businesses with a bit more weight, then the same should be true of our students.
Lion’s Roar: Welcome.
The Lion’s Roar, thank you for your comments. They help me better understand your perspective and why you may have published the document the way you chose. I do not agree with many of your comments; however I guess this blog is intended to open respectful dialog. Just because the mayor is behind in making his quota of affordable housing units, that is not a reason to implement a flawed proposal. Maybe the next meeting with the BOA and the developers will fix the flaws?
There was another proposal, that Alderwoman Norton has referenced in this thread, that was smaller in scope (only 3 stories tall) yet significantly more truly affordable housing units (25). What happened to that proposal? Does the current ASP proposal (even though this is not a 40B project) offer the ability to count all 68 units as “affordable” since they are rental units? The smaller building, while offering 100% affordable units, only offers 25 units. Is the mayor trying to achieve the identified goal any way possible?
Greg, thank you for clarifying and editing your comment. I really had to read your initial suggestion several times because it was not typical of you to suggest the stoppage of speaking poorly about the NVA. Your new suggestion fits you so much better. Was the NVA comment in the editorial a motivating factor for you to start this thread, or are we moving into a new category on V14 commenting on high school editorials? Like others on this thread, I believe there is a significant number of our high school students, who can clearly articulate a position within a written document. And we need to listen to them and understand what they consider important. Agreeing with them is a separate issue.
I find it entertaining that Gail, having read your incorrect statement, was able to answer your comment correctly without even mentioning that you had your thoughts backward. You two have worked together for a long time, maybe right up through this thread?
Just making observations and asking questions.
@Patrick: You may not believe me, but providing a place for a community conversation is a much higher personal priority for me than “winning” on any issue. I believe it is really beneficial to have a community forum where all sides can come to debate and deliberate so that, no matter what happens, we all have a better idea how we got there.
That’s why I invest so much personal time into Village 14.
(I’ve also been linking to our high school papers for years, although unfortunately not to Lion’s Roar because its content is not online.)
All that said, I am entirely certain I would have posted this editorial no matter which position the Lion’s Roar took. Certainly I’ve linked to many things I didn’t agree with over the years.
As for Gail, we edited each other’s words for years so yes, we often know what each other is trying to say even when we fail at it.
@Patrick: No collaboration on this thread. I don’t need to collaborate with Greg to know where he stands on first amendment rights.
But have we ever communicated behind the scenes about a thread? Sure. I’ve done that with many people on this blog over the years. So have many others. Not sure why you’d even question it.
FChuck is right when he wonders how deep the opposition to Austin Street is. But I suspect it’s deeper than he’s suggesting and also deeper than the NVA. In fact, I suspect many Austin Street non-supporters have never heard of the NVA. Then again, all we know about the NVA is that it’s run by a five person steering committee. We don’t really know how big they are beyond that.
What we do know is that the NVA is a political coalition and, as with any coalition, individuals participate for different reasons: Some came to the NVA table because of worries about tear downs and monster houses, some over loss of trees, others about traffic, others about Austin Street, Wells Ave or any of the many 40Bs before us.
Then along comes this week’s Lion’s Roar editorial which suggests the..
I suspect that view may be held by some in the NVA coalition. But, for most, its really an entirely understandable effort to get control over rapid change and growth, including the very real loss of moderately priced homes and the things they appreciate about Newton right now.
Still, I understand why the Lion’s Roar editors have that impression about the NVA.
Yes, for starters, there’s the statement on the NVA website the Roar quotes..
And then there’s also be the dire warnings about “urbanization” and Newton becoming the next Cambridge, Brookline or Somerville that have been staples in the NVA rhetoric.
But, more significantly, since its debut in May of 2014, the NVA has been exclusively about opposing stuff. They seem to be against any change as if Newton should be ensconced in snow globe, entirely immune from any change.
Until the NVA leadership is able to articulate what it supports, it’s not surprising that others will speculate about its hidden agenda.
Greg, I have said it in prior threads, and I say it again; the citizens of Newton benefit greatly from your passion to offer this blog. I consider it the best and most popular place to get current, relevant Newton information. (Note: I do wish you would re-institute the secret code thing. It gave me a safety net regarding premature comment sending.)
Part of using this blog requires that I accept your snarky and condescending comments towards certain people. I do not find it helpful in fostering a positive discussion, and as the leader of this blog I feel you set a bad example at times, which I now copy sometimes unfortunately. I would have better discipline if I was comfortable that everyone behaved at the same, higher level of conversation. JMO.
Gail, it would have helped me (and maybe others) if you had preceded your comment with an explanation that you know what Greg is saying even when he states the opposite. Many of us have not worked so closely with Greg over the years so we, at least I, take him at his words. JMO.
Off Topic, again:
This is a sincere message to the high school students from both NSHS and NNHS:
As you probably know we are right around election time (less than a month). One of the issues on the ballot is charter reform for the city of Newton. I. for one, would love to hear what you and your school papers have for ideas for changing our charter, if any.
Also, charter reform comes every 40 odd years. I can only speak for myself and I am certainly not on the commission (no one is, yet), but I would think one of the first things a new commission would try to find are interns, researchers and note takers to help out the commission when things get going in the early part of next year. Just to put this out there, you may be able to take part in an extremely historic part of Newton’s next generation one way or another.
I would love to see both papers (or individuals) come up with a slate of innovative ideas, especially where it relates to the schools. It would be no crime if you couldn’t think of any as it’s a difficult task to ask anyone. This is an important opportunity and maybe some of you could even report on ideas during open hearings, etc. I look forward to hear some of your ideas in the weeks/months to come. Take care.
I think that Greg quite succinctly captured the essence of how NVA appears to many observers. Looking at their website, I too glean that their primary goal is to maintain status quo, whether that be by opposing the replacement of smaller homes with McMansions, removal of trees or changing the character of use of a particular lot of land.
As to the comment about neighborhood stability (“when people move to Newton they are becoming part of an established community. They value and expect stability in the character of our neighborhoods”) I do not interpret this to be directed at low income residents. Rather, I interpret this to be status based reflecting a preference for permanent property owners who presumably will become stable members of the community over renters who are presumably transient and will not become invested community members. Of course, there are plenty of examples of absentee home owners and long term renters to expose the fallacy of these suppositions. I’m not convinced that NVA is opposed to any and all change of the Austin Street lot. If their survey is any indication of their views, I suspect that they lean towards a very small, scaled down construction providing a mixed public use and commercial space, perhaps with some limited number of residential units above the space.
Regardless of whether anyone has a “hidden” agenda, there can be no reasonable dispute that the civil discourse about affordable housing in Newton has coarsened of late. This cannot be laid entirely at the feet of any group, although recent guest columns in the TAB by one of the leaders of the NVA repeatedly claim that Newton has “done enough” and that affordable housing efforts should instead be concentrated in “Gateway” communities, where there are already large numbers of low to moderate income and minority households. Significantly, a majority of a very conservative Supreme Court recently affirmed that such policies may constitute unlawful discrimination under the Fair Housing Act because of the “disparate impact” on protected classes of people, even if such discrimination was not intentional. (For those who are interested, the Newton Fair Housing Committee is holding a forum on this and other recent dcevelopments under the Fair Housing Act on October 22 at 7:30 PM at the Senior Center.)
I would, however, note that the NVA has joined a small but vocal minority of about a dozen households–in a densely populated neighborhood of 60+ households–to oppose a modest 5 unit project in Ward 3 that originally included one affordable unit and one handicapped accessible unit. The project has now been reduced to 4 units, including one affordable unit, but the NVA and this group of neighbors are still opposed. Disturbingly, a number of the emails sent to aldermen in opposition to this project have claimed that the inclusion of the affordable/accessible units in this project would somehow “stigmatize” the neighborhood. One neighbor–whom I have known and considered a friend for over ten years–went so far as to say that the city was trying to “ghettoize” the neighborhood. While the meaning of “stigmatize” arguably is subject to interpretation, I do not think there can be any ambiuguity as to what “ghettoize” refers to in this context: it means poor people and/or people of color.
Alone among my aldermanic colleagues fromWard 3, so far, I have publicly denounced this kind of rhetoric as offensive and counter to Newton’s aspirations to be a welcoming and inclusive community. Regardless whether the NVA or anyone other organization is to blame for promoting these attitudes and for stoking fear about the kind of people who would move into affordable units andt their effect on property values, I call on both of my opponents in the AAL3 race–one of whom is a member and both of whom have been endorsed by the NVA–to join me in denouncing this disgraceful, discriminatory rhetoric. There is no place for this kind of hateful talk in Newton’s civil discourse.
I would add only that, although we often disagree, I have engaged with a number of folks who are active in the NVA, and for the most part we are able to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I do not believe they necessaruly harbor any animus toward minotiries or the poor. Nevetheless, I think it is incumbent upon the leaders of the NVA to also denounce such rhetoric, which is not consistent with what Newton is supposed to be all about.
I’m not a member of the NVA, but that was way over the top. That type of namecalling in uncalled for. I always had a saying, if you can’t win an argument without namecalling, you’re on the wrong side of the issue. This is squarely wrong. Ted, sorry you had to go through that type of behavior from anyone especially from someone from Newton.
I’ve been called names over the years and I’m not an elected official, it still stings. You can have a great day and the namecalling was the only negative in your day, but when looking back. the namecalling is all you’ll take away from the day….it stinks.
Patrick, I actually thought this thread was pretty civil. Not seeing the snark, and I’m guilty of my share of it, so you’d think I’d see it. Perhaps it is the presence of the Lion’s Roar folks, but I thought it was a good blog conversation…
Ted, I think it depends on the project. There have been a few folks here who have noted the affordability and said, well, if all of you liked affordable projects, why not advocate for the smaller one that was 100% affordable. I would have been fine with that project, or any of the 100% affordable smaller projects, although I admit I’m a fan of the $1,000,000 that is promised to Newtonville for village improvements. But the cynic in me imagines that many of the folks advertising that particular project would have found a way to be opposed if it had been the one chosen by the Mayor and the committee.
Emily, you mentioned that smaller bid above. Would that particular project have had your support? Just curious, I realize that isn’t on the table. Amy? Susan? Anyone else from the Aldercritters?
fignewtonville, my reference to Greg’s snarky comments was a general observation, not specific to this thread. I could have been clearer.
@Patrick: You’re such a jerk, if you we’ve been reading my comments more religiously you’d see that I’ve cut back considerably on both my combativeness and my snarkiness. 🙂
(Honestly I really have been trying!)
@Fig, here is the project I was referring to. It didn’t make it past the first narrowing from 6 to 3 projects.
I won’t comment on my own support for it or not. However I will say that the one thing I hear consistently from Newtonville residents is that the affordable units is one of the aspects (sometimes the only aspect) of the current proposal that they like. Also the size and scale of the Metro West proposal more closely matches the outcome of the Newtonville Area Council survey of residents and businesses.
Emily, I was aware of the project, I was trying to get a sense of the whether the various alderfolk would approve any project (those that oppose this one especially). You and Amy seem most vocal about your disapproval, but I don’t recall hearing whether you would have supported any of the six responses to the RFP.
For the record, didn’t the ASP proposal and the $5 million larger project tie for first? Seems so long ago I can’t remember.
Patrick, thanks for the clarification. Frankly, I’ll be glad when the ASP is done, one way or the other. There is more than one issue in our community, and in Newtonville lately it is all anyone talks about. Well, that and Cabot’s rehab, and the parking lot.
All I want is a pleasant place outside to sip my coffee in Newtonville. Is that too much to ask… 😉
I love the Lion’s Roar! As a professional journalist, I applaud your cogent writing and ability to seize a topic. Kudos to you!
NVA took no official stance on the Engine 6 project, leaving it to affected residents to debate. Surely, it would have boosted the group’s pro-affordable housing cred if the NVA had come out in favor of Engine 6. After all, the proposal involved an EXISTING structure and no added density. As such, it should have been the perfect project for an anti-density, pro-affordable housing group to support.
The statement on the NVA website about neighborhood stability is certainly ambiguous. Along with the interpretations above of “controlling rapid change,” “”wrong kind of people,” and “owners not renters” there is my own. I thought “when people move to Newton … They value the stability and character of their neighborhoods” was in reference to the tear downs being replaced by homes that do not fit in with the “character” (architecture, design, time period, scale, green space) of the neighborhood they moved to. Instead the new homes are squeezed onto small lots, have little green space, are 3 stories tall, and have no actual character. They delineate no time period. This makes it obvious that only the NVA knows what the paragraph means.
From Ald Hess-Mann’s comment, I see that there are more not quite so hidden animosities directed toward affordable housing than I was aware of. That really needs consideration as regards the Fair Housing Act. Newton has already been called out for being in violation and I hope these matters are settled quickly.
It has always been our intention to equate ‘character of Newton’ with the physical aspects of housing structures, open space and trees; the word’ character’ has never referred to the ethnicity or the social economic class of a group.
Certainly, nobody on the NVA steering committee would approve the use of the words ‘stigmatize’ and ‘ghettoize’, regardless of how infuriating it is to see a project with five units and an underground garage (with a blind exit) in a residential neighborhood.
As many of you know, I am a NVA officer, trying to make the city a better one: name-calling does not help.
@Lauren Paul
The NVA regularly gets a bashing here – blog articles regularly mention that they formed mid 2014 ….. Engine6 was mid 2013.
Its a a bit of a stretch giving them a hard time on that one!
So Mr. Hess-Mahan gets to impugn the motives and size of the group opposed to the Knight of Columbus South Gate Park do over. Mr. Hess-Mahan, you don’t know me, or most of the rest of our “vocal minority,” who are the people who actually reside around the project. This is hardly the way to resolve a civil disagreement that involves people’s homes. (The Supreme Court. Really?) Despite what Mr. Hess-Mahan and the developer’s lawyer assert, a clear majority of the abutting owner-occupied households is opposed to the scope of the project, and its unprecedented underground garage and driveway. The project needs the driveway and garage to fit in the four units, only one of which is “affordable.” Take a look at the “comparable” 244 Adams and 244 California Street apartment driveways on Google and then look at South Gate Park and tell us with a straight face that they are comparable to South Gate Park.
@Simon I interviewed someone with the NVA when I was researching my Boston magazine article about Engine 6. This person said the group was neutral as to Engine 6 but pro-affordable housing. I see a contradiction there if others do not.
@Lauren Paul
Now you’ve lost me. Your original reference was to the Engine 6 Project, and how the NVA should have come out in favor of it – How could it have done so if it wasn’t formed at the time? Or was it?
@Fig: When the alder-councilors are deciding special permits, we do so as a “quasi-judicial authority” and as such as are not supposed to be opining before we have all the facts. If you’d asked me at the time I would have said that I liked certain aspects of the Metro West proposal including the scale, the 100% affordability, and the lack of an underground garage which would have meant speedier and less disruptive construction.
The letter below was sent to the Board of Alderman today to dispel the outrageous comments made by Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan yesterday on this thread in connection with a Ward 3 development project.
For some reason, Ted is trying to politicize the project before tonight’s Land Use hearing, while demonizing fair and respectful opposition of neighbors. Ted’s use of divisive language that doesn’t represent the neighborhood’s views and opposition to the project is deceitful and polarizing.
Ted seems to have little respect for the citizens of his Ward 3 who simply don’t agree with him.
We can do better in the next election where citizens can vote for candidates who respect others and fairly and honestly advocate for their positions, such as Jim Cote and Julia Malakie, rather than someone who works on behalf of for-profit developers and unfairly demonizes and inaccurately misrepresents citizen-neighbors who disagree with him.
Dear Board of Alderman:
Our group of neighbors previously sent the attached letters dated August 30, 2015 and October 9, 2015 opposing the KOC project proposed at 15 South Gate Park.
Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan’s recent public comments concerning the KOC project yesterday on the Village 14 blog (http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/10/lions-roar-weighs-in-on-austin-street-project/#comment-61486) have completely mischaracterized the opposition of the group of neighbors to the proposed high-density project in this single-family zoned residential neighborhood. Name calling and derisive insinuations that the neighbors are anti-minority and anti-poor and accusing neighbors of “disgraceful, discriminatory rhetoric” and “hateful talk” are not constructive to an open and fair dialogue and nothing could be further from the truth.
Neighbors banded together in opposition to the project when they became aware of its underground parking garage (unprecedented in a Newton residential neighborhood) and its dangerously designed one-way, blind, 10% graded driveway exiting onto the busy, curved, narrow street at the Adena Road/North Gate intersection (later swapped to the South Gate side causing similar problems).
Neighbors expressed concern for the safety of children and other pedestrians walking to Wellington Park and Franklin Elementary School and caused by traffic due to additional on-street parking and cars waiting in the road to enter the garage while other cars pull out and exit the one-way driveway.
Neighbors have made constructive comments regarding the fact that the lot is simply too small for a five-unit or four-unit apartment building, and the project is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood, located a 15-minute walk outside of the West Newton center, of single-family homes; grandfathered two-family homes; and only 2% grandfathered three-family homes. If the scope of the project was appropriate for the size of the ~14,000 square foot lot, the developer would not need approval of the underground garage and two 2-car surface parking lots with three separate curb cuts across sidewalks into the street. The city engineer has raised similar concerns, calling the underground parking garage “impractical” and the 3 curb cuts “excessive”, amongst other issues raised in the report. (http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/69161)
Neighbors grouped together specifically to ask the developer to eliminate the underground parking garage and build no more than 3 units (by right the developer could only build 1 single family home). Approximately one-dozen members of the neighborhood abutting the property unanimously spoke out against the project at the 8/4 LUC meeting raising concerns over the underground garage and that putting 4 or 5 units in the SR neighborhood on a 14,000 sq. foot lot is inappropriate. Notable, the lone supporter who spoke in favor of the project does not live among the 64 abutting properties and her support has been largely-focused on the relatively trivial matter of a developer-promised water line to a small garden in the median.
Neighbors see this project as being about maximizing profits for the developer, not adding new affordable units to Newton’s housing stock. It is noteworthy that 3 of the 4 proposed units are luxury-style “market rate” apartments that will be rented at higher amounts than already-existing rental units in the neighborhood. It is not worth the overdevelopment of the lot and added safety concerns to add one smaller affordable unit. More importantly, as a condition to approval of the special permit, Newton could require a unit of affordable housing in a 3-unit building (33% of the building rather than only 25%) and eliminate the underground garage, while still allowing the developer to make a profit, especially without the added construction costs of installing an underground garage below an existing building (the lot was purchased for only $450,000 in September 2014). Let’s not confuse the debate over affordable housing with what’s really at stake here: bigger and bigger outsized profits for developers seeking to overdevelop lots in our residential neighborhoods.
With respect to the accessible unit, what neighbors said in a note to LUC on 8/30 and during the hearing was that the accessible unit ( ~470 square foot unit) was too small, had no garage access, no covered parking, and seemed like an afterthought. That proved to be true when the developer dropped this less profitable unit from the project.
Our neighborhood is made up of working class families and professionals who live in modest homes. Two-thirds of the neighborhood is two-family homes (grandfathered) and we have a robust mix of homeowners and renters. Our neighborhood is one of the more affordable in Newton and our population is extremely diverse in terms of socioeconomics, race, nationality, sexual orientation, age, and family status with college students, young singles and couples, families, and retirees. We have a strong sense of community and many of us settled here for our children to take advantage of Newton’s top-notch schools and teachers. It would be great if the rest of Newton had the same affordable housing options and diversity of our West Newton neighborhood.
The neighborhood’s “group” letters to Land Use Aldermen have been courteous and focused on genuine concerns for safety and total number of units and parking on the odd shaped ~14,000 square ft. parcel. These “group” letters are part of the public record and make none of the outrageous claims suggested by Alderman Hess-Mahan’s comments. Any letter or private conversation of an individual not endorsed by the “group” cannot be attributed to the group as a whole. In any event, we are aware that Alderman Hess-Mahan mischaracterized the context of comments made by his “friend” who was questioning whether developers of high-density housing projects are targeting less affluent pockets of Newton, such as ours, where affordable housing is already available and opposition is less likely.
While the neighbors have been cooperative and thoughtful, the same cannot be said of the developer (who has failed to upkeep the property) and his attorney who threaten the neighborhood with “secret” projects if the neighborhood doesn’t roll over to their demands. It was shocking to see the developer’s attorney, Terry Morris, attempt to bully the Alderman in a screaming outburst during the 8/4 Land Use hearing because the project wasn’t approved that evening but instead “held” due to the neighbor concerns, additional research on what size an accessible unit should be, and issues with the parking garage that needed further review. While that type of behavior might be expected of a developer attorney focused solely on the profits of his client (not affordable housing or diversity), it was more shocking to see Alderman Hess-Mahan joke during the public meeting that the developer could put a “strip club” (direct quote from 8/4 hearing) into our residential neighborhood.
We reject Alderman Hess-Mahan’s effort to demonize fair and respectful opposition of neighbors. His use of divisive language that doesn’t represent the group’s opposition to the project is deceitful and polarizing. Such rhetoric has no place in a public debate. Neighbors remain open to a continuing fair, cooperative dialogue on the KOC special permit with the Board of Aldermen and the developer at tonight’s Land Use hearing.
Mr. Morahan et al., I met many of the neighbors who attended the site visit. To reiterate, I do not think the opponents of this particular project necessarily harbor racial animus. But the rhetoric suggesting that affordable housing will “stigmatize” or “ghettoize” the neighborhood I find utterly offensive. I hope you do too. It has no proper place in civil discourse about this or any other affordable housing project.
@Alderman THM: How much time have you spent visiting or living in affordable housing projects? While it’s my sincere hope that there’s no racial animus re: affordable housing projects, it could be that those with whom you’ve recently been conversing have different life experiences that lead them to view the situation as they do.
Isn’t it funny that certain Aldermen and Women, given their personal agendas, and political ambitions, have so little regard for their own ward constituents ? When will “the chickens come home to roost”?
Tom Davis, I have visited many community housing developments for people living on low to moderate income as well as people with disabilities as part of my job when I worked in human services. As an advocate and an attorney, I have also represented people who are poor, homeless or disabled or have been discriminated in employment or housing. Before joining the Board, I was the president of the board of a local non-profit that creates affordable housing in Newton for several years (a volunteer position for which I never received any compensation).
Over the years, I have heard many of the same misconceptions about what having “affordable housing” or “housing for people with disabilities” will mean to a neighborhood, regardless of the size and scope of the particular project. The objections and concerns are almost always the same: the kind of people who will move in; the impact on property values; whether the project and the residents living in it will “fit in” with the existing neighborhood. Almost all of the projects I have ever been involved directly with were modest “in fill” projects with under 10 units.
My experience has always been that once these projects are completed, these projects make good neighborhoods even better and more diverse and the residents are welcomed and integrated into the neighborhood. Thankfully, many of the fears and misconceptions that neighbors have at the beginning evaporate once the construction is done and the families or individuals move in.
I would like to think that all people are basically good and kind. I do not deny that there are some people who do, indeed, harbor biases and prejudices against the kind of people who live in affordable housing. And I also know that sometimes good people get sucked into the kind of rhetoric I am talking about because they are concerned about or made afraid of change. But people can also grow and change.
Ald Hess-Mann, I’m surprised to see you commenting on a proposal after there has been a special permit application. You are clearly expressing your approval. And I find your “joking” about putting in a strip club an inappropriate manner of dialogue.
Marti, I am merely expressing my disapproval of what I thought were offensive remarks about affordable housing. And you are right to call me on my own stupid remark, for which I apologize.
Ted Hess-Mahan,
You need to apologize for a lot more than your disgusting “strip club” comments.
You defamed the Ward 3 group of neighbors opposed to the KOC project with false charges of racial animus and bigotry against the poor.
You knew that the neighbors grouped together to oppose the project due to safety concerns for children and other pedestrians caused by the underground parking garage and dangerous one-way, blind, 10% graded ramp into a narrow, curved, busy residential street. You also knew that neighbors opposed the construction of a 5-unit apartment building on a lot that was too small for adequate parking and was situated in a single-family zoned neighborhood.
Your public charges attributing “hateful talk” and “discriminatory rhetoric” to the group were false, intentionally misleading, and reckless.
You attributed the term “ghettoize” to the entire group knowing full well that the group never used the term in any of its group letters to the Board of Alderman. In doing so, you intentionally tried to create a public perception that the opposition was fueled by hatred and bigotry. Nothing could be further from the truth. More importantly, you knew your mischaracterization was false and misleading at the time you wrote it.
Furthermore, you intentionally and falsely mischaracterized an individual’s use of the term “ghettoize” in an attempt to condemn the individual and all of the neighbors in opposition to the project. You stated in V14 that “I do not think there can be any ambiguity as to what ‘ghettoize’ refers to in this context: it means poor people and/or people of color.” You know that this was not the context or tone of that individual’s letter, which stated clearly that: “I am supportive of more housing, especially affordable housing in Newton, but I don’t see why this project must be for five units and not three?” The letter writer went on to criticize the targeting of certain less-affluent neighborhoods, like ours, by developers for high-density development projects. He noted that “[o]ur neighborhood is one of the most diverse parts of Newton” and already contains existing multi-family and two-family homes. He concluded that the “city’s housing diversity” need not be isolated or segregated or “ghettoize[d]” to neighborhoods like ours. Although perhaps not the best word choice in a time that politicians like you seek to polarize and divide neighbors with lies and half-truths, the comment had nothing to do with race or class, as our neighborhood is extremely diverse in both its population and housing stock. You knew all of this, but chose to misrepresent the individual’s comment for your own self-interest in your bid for re-election.
Your inflammatory charge was designed to intimidate the group and its individuals from exercising their rights to political speech at last night’s Land Use hearing considering approval of the KOC project. Your false charges were further designed to influence how the Land Use members voted on the project.
You were too much of a coward to attend the Land Use hearing (despite attending the last one to vigorously support the project) to face those individuals who you so recklessly and callously accused. Neighbors took to the podium, one after the other, to denounce your hateful rhetoric to your empty chair. You chose not to be there to answer for your false charges and divisive words and to apologize to the neighbors in person.
I call on you now to unequivocally and publicly retract your false statements. Your after-the-fact, walk-back that “I do not think the opponents of this particular project necessarily harbor racial animus” is insufficient to clear the public record after you so deliberately and maliciously made your false charges. The Ward 3 opposition group deserves nothing less than a full and sincere apology.
There is a choice in ward 3. Julia Malakie and Jim Cote. Politicians with personal agendas that deny their own constituents fair hearing, need to be replaced.
Wow, that escalated quickly.
TimWestNewton, I know absolutely nothing about your project. But I think you are painting Ted with too broad a brush, as I didn’t read his comment as being as insulting as you did. Clearly he thinks the particular letter writer deserved to be called out for his/her rhetoric (to be honest, I agree with him on that, that was at a minimum an unfortunate language choice). But I think you are conflating your anger at Ted for supporting the project with your anger at Ted for his post.
I also think that opponents to projects oppose for different reasons. I think for some folks there is just an innate bias against any type of change. Some immediate neighbors are worried about an immediate impact on their home and/or property values. Some are worried about traffic, or lifestyle impact, or the schools. And some, very clearly in my view, are worried about the “quality” of the new residents, that they won’t ‘fit in” or be good members of the community. I’ve heard that statement quite a few times since I’ve moved to Newton about various projects. Some folks who opposed Philip Neri just used that argument on me recently.
some of this type of rhetoric is class based, not race based. Some of it is a preference for long standing single family homeowners. Some of it is a reaction to renters not owners (although renters in communities like Newton tend to be very good members of the community). Some of it is likely to be a very nice person using an unfortunate turn of phrase (which I suspect was the case for the Philip Neri gentleman who said it). Some of it is folks expressing the thought “I spent XXX amount of money to buy into Newton, why should someone who rents or gets a break on ownership get an easier path! It is so unfair!”.
I’m not going to solve all of the above in a blog post. But I do note that it is certainly possible to get cynical regarding the reactions of opponents to projects, and that together with the righteous opposition there can be some bad apples, and for anyone who supports a project, it can be hard to tell the difference. And I’m sure it is equally frustrating by those righteous opponents to be painted with a broad brush of racism when all they are doing is hating a particular project due to a driveway, or traffic, or “change”.
For those of us on the outside though, reactions like yours in my opinion don’t drive opinion your way. Calling Ted a coward, posting letters to the Aldercritters with such angry language on the blog, etc. shows me you are passionate, but also makes me wonder if your reaction is partially due to the truth cutting too deep. Which is probably very unfair on my part, but I want to be honest with how I read your post.
I sincerely hope that the project and your group opposing that project find a happy medium. I also hope we can either end this thread or bring it back to the original topic at hand.
“You were too much of a coward to attend the Land Use hearing (despite attending the last one to vigorously support the project) to face those individuals who you so recklessly and callously accused. ”
Having known Ted H-M for several years, and having the utmost respect for him (although we do not always agree….), I have never pegged him as a coward. If he was not there for a specific hearing, I imagine there is a good reason (maybe something to do with his actual job)! TimWestNewton, you have a lot of anger – I hope that you can resolve your hostilities.
@ Fignewtonville,
And just how is this off the topic at hand. We have a community ( communities if you want to include the NVA ) that have been mischaracterized and they are angry. How is justice served by shutting down the conversation?
As an elected and sitting Alderman, it is highly inappropriate for Ted Hess-Mahan to paint an entire group of private citizen-neighbors as racist and anti-poor because they oppose a development project he supports and will be voting on, when he knows the group has raised legitimate concerns over the safety of the underground parking garage and appropriateness of the 4-unit project in a single-family zoned neighborhood, and the group has been nothing but respectful and cooperative in the process.
Tim,
Isn’t it interesting that this “Lions Roar” thread has been shut down and buried ? Without even an announcement ? Try finding it in the “search” file. You get Superintendent Fleischman / Lions Roar ,.. Etc. but no mention of this latest caffufle. It would seem that the good Alderman and his friends and allies who run the V14 don’t want any more costly discussion and embarrassment. So the adjectival expression ” the Vile Blog” that one hears about town, has some basis in reality ??!!
Greg Riebman what say you ??
Bill: huh?
@Blueprintbill,
Protip: try spelling “Lion’s Roar” correctly (with the apostrophe) in the search.
What JenAK said.
(And if it was shut down, you wouldn’t be able to comment, which, of course, you just did.)
Here’s a question for folks on both sides of this project: imagine a project proposal identical to this one in all respects *except* all market rate. Does the opposition (or a substantial portion of it) go away? If it does, those who believe overt or covert racism/classism is at the root of the opposition have a valid point. If it doesn’t, then what?
No, is the uncomplicated answer, it would only grow.
The problem is with the word opposition.
I am not “opposed” (that would be #4? on the Chamber survey, “kill the project”) to the multi-use project on Austin Street but I still believe it has problems that need to be worked out. In the early stages I had many concerns but they have mostly been worked out.
I don’t like the overly seen box design but am willing to compromise and so I’ve stopped wishing for the impossible, which included wanting to know more about the Metro West submission which was smaller, all affordable and offered the same amount of money. The impossibles also include going back in time and not surplusing 4 municipal parking lots, not making the decision to offer the lot at a reduced price to attract developers, not writing the 2007 Comp Plan in language that lets any side use it when things are contested, changing the RFP somewhat and the making the parameters of the MU4 zoning more definitive without the already determined special permit uses. But that ship has sailed.
Now there is a proposal with a special permit up for consideration, I think the best use of time is finding ways to make it the best one it can be so the board has the info to make a descision to approve it or not.
I would like to see the affordable units more affordable, a better physical design of some of the apartments, a workable mitigation plan for the construction period and a workable parking lot.
The members of the “opposition” I have spoken to would oppose it quite a bit more loudly if this proposal were for all “market rate” apartments. I spoke with numerous people who live either in or close to Newtonville yesterday. The majority were concerned that with the rents rising there will soon be a dirth of residents in their own economic situation, at least the one they were in when they moved to Newton. They had been hoping that the ASP proposal that limited the general units to 120% ARMI, which would still be close to $100,00.00 a year, would still be included.
How about the Southgate project? If the proposal was exactly the same, but without the affordable unit, would the neighborhood “vocal minority” still oppose it? I think the answer is yes, especially after reading the full context in which the “offending” terms were used. In which case, the accusations of racism, classism, and hateful speech starts to sound a lot like divisive rhetoric.
Thank you, Tricia. We never had an issue with an affordable unit. But why do we need to permit 4 to 5 units and an underground parking garage in a residential neighborhood for a single unit of affordable housing? The luxury-style market rate units will be priced at a premium for the neighborhood and will give the developer a windfall (he bought the lot for less than $500,000 knowing it is zoned single-family). Why not tell the developer no, come back without the underground garage and 3 units, and make one of those affordable?
Tim,
Why not come back,.. ? It’s politely called maximizing ones return on investment. Otherwise pure greed!
And it feeds a political agenda.
At last night’s Board of Aldermen meeting, I made a long overdue apology to neighbors who oppose the proposed project that would preserve the historic West Newton clubhouse on South Gate Park and convert it to a residential use, including affordable housing. I want to sincerely apologize again in this forum.
My comments above were in reaction to what I perceived to be harsh, judgmental and unfair remarks about the project. Rather than taking the high road, however, I responded with harsh, judgmental and unfair remarks of my own concerning neighborhood opponents to what I still consider to be a worthy project. That was a disservice to them and not in keeping with the high standard I set for myself as a local elected official. And for that, I am truly sorry.
Words can hurt. There have been enough harsh words, of late, concerning housing and other important issues facing our community. I deeply regret adding to them.