Andrea Segal, former resident of Newton Lower Falls currently residing at the Pine Street Women’s Inn, made the trip to Newton City Hall on Nov. 12 to testify before the Land Use Committee. Here’s what she had to say..
Good evening. My name is Andrea Segal and I’m a former resident of Newton Lower Falls. I lived with the Newton Housing Authority for 30 years. I lost my housing four years ago. I have nowhere to live. I’ve been sleeping in a homeless shelter for four years.
We need more affordable housing in the state of Massachusetts, not only in Newton but everywhere. How am I going to go back home?
I don’t think anyone in this room has ever lived in a homeless shelter. There are almost 200 women there who have nowhere to go. There’s a men’s shelter there too. They have nowhere to go. Some people live there for years and years.
There are not enough apartments in this country. There are many homeless in America. All over. It’s a big problem. It has to be dealt with. And with attitudes like this [several prior speakers had testified against the project, including the most recent one], nothing is ever going to happen. Have a good night.
I feel for her. She used to call me for help, but there just wasn’t anything I could do as an outsider.
This is incredibly troubling. Can anyone please shed some light on how this happened?
Tom, given that she called you, I hope she also called other politicians? Did they do anything to help?
It doesn’t matter where you’re from as homelessness doesn’t discriminate. Given that many in my own family (from Newton) have been homeless, I’d predict that there are hundreds if not thousands of Newton residents who have become homeless over the years. In fact, under Governor Patrick, Massachusetts saw unprecedented growth in family homelessness, and we were ranked as one of the worst states at addressing the problem. Compared to a state like Utah, which has nearly ended homelessness, we are demonstrably doing a bad job. I’m not sure what you think a politician would be willing to do, Michael.
Which leads me to my point: what does Austin Street have to do with homelessness? If you are chronically homeless, it likely means that you have an underlying drug/alcohol or mental illness (most do), and it certainly means that you have no money to pay rent. How does developing housing for the rich help people like Andrea? I understand that supposedly a few of the units (6?) are restricted to individuals/families with Section 8, but at least based on the developers clever writing, even that’s not guaranteed.
Yesterday I asked ASP how much profit they are anticipating from this project. They never responded. I want an answer to this question so that I can offer substantive policy ideas that could actually make a difference in the lives of those living in Newton in tough circumstances. If individuals like Andrea live in Newton public housing for 30 years yet end up homeless immediately thereafter, the question we should be asking is: what more can we do to help those in our public housing develop a skill set that’ll afford them the opportunity to not end up homeless?
Let me be more specific: Was she evicted simply for falling behind on her rent payments to the Newton Housing Authority? Because that’s not something that any politician should allow to happen.
@Tom Davis. What you say jibes completely with what I’ve gleaned over the years from chronically homeless people at Pine Street and beyond . You would be my immediate choice to head up a City program that would seek to honestly and dispassionately address a chronic problem that always seems to fly below the radar screen until something highly visible like Austin Street comes along.
@Tom: An analysis by Horgan & Associates found that the developer would net $14M after 20 years.
I don’t know what the proper number is, although I believe the best analysis of the project’s finances can be found here.
However Alderman Norton failed to that Horgan & Associates represents one of the project’s opponents and is hardly an independent source.
Greg, do you have any other information on Andrea’s situation. Specifically why she is no longer living where she was in the Newton Housing Authority? What help she has been offered? Is someone working with her? Did you ask her before you put her story on V14?
Putting her story here without any background or information on what is happening seems exploitive to me since you seem to be using her personal experience to promote a mixed use development that has no direct bearing on her situation.
I’m certainly glad she came to the hearing and spoke about her situation. It’s a heart breaking story. In another context, such as supporting a solution to help her, it would make sense. It leads me to think that you and the city need to be concentrating on building housing that applies to that situation. It puts a bad taste in my mouth for a proposal that I have supported that will be mostly for people who make a lot of money.
I see now that it is in the letter from the Friends of Austin a Street.
It also makes me wonder about the proposal from Metro West with funding from Village Bank that was rejected immediately for the Austin Street Lot.
@Marti – I don’t know the woman and was not at the public hearing where she spoke.
The woman took the time and trouble to come to a public hearing, to speak publicly, on the public record about this project. Given that, I have to assume that she wanted her voice heard publicly on this topic. Given that, whether you agree or disagree with her, I can’t see what is exploitative about repeating her comments here on the blog.
I agree 100% with Marti. Andrea’s story was put out there without any background info. This is very troubling that this story is being used to gather support for the Austin Street project. What we don’t know is why Andrea after 30 years is no longer in Newton Housing. To my knowledge and I don’t know this situation here, is that tenants are asked to leave for many different reasons such as drug or alcohol abuse or a physical threat to other residents.
@Michael: I agree with you. However, it’s unlikely that she was evicted for simply being behind on rent. Generally, if someone is removed from Newton public housing, there’s a lot going on behind the scenes.
@Bob Burke: We haven’t met, but based on your V14 posts, I’ve got a lot of respect for you. Consequently, I really appreciate your voice of confidence. I’ve long believed that Newton could be a national leader in regard to addressing the root causes of these types of problems. If I were entrusted to lead anything in our city, I have no doubt that we would deliver unmatched results.
@Emily: Thanks for this info! Any chance you have a link to this analysis?
@Marti: Spot on.
@Jerry: You assume that Andrea found out about this meeting and spoke on her own volition. If she did, based on my experiences, I’d both be surprised and impressed. If Andrea’s life is being exploited by anyone to help push this project through, I will get to the bottom of it. It is my sincere hope that no one in Newton would stoop to such a low.
Jerry, I don’t understand where you are coming from with your reply to me. I never at any time indicated I wasn’t in complete agreement with Ms Segal that something needs to be done for those in her circumstance. I think it is quite admirable that she spoke at the hearing to shine a brighter light on the plight of many in our area. I am only interested in doing whatever is necessary to help with this problem. I asked questions because it seems horrendous to me that she lost her housing after 30 years living within the Newton Housing Authority jurisdiction.
I followed my first post with an acknowledgement that what she said was already made public.
The thing that is exploitive is her story being used to garner support for a project that won’t help her or others like her. I would think the better avenue would be to follow up on her story and do whatever it takes to see that people aren’t being wrongly evicted from our public housing.
I am a strong supporter of several of the organization’s listed on the Friends of Austin Street letter to the BOA. I have been advocating for a lower AMI threshold and was pleased to see that 6 apartments MAY be reserved for Section 8 vouchers and up to 50% AMI instead of 80% AMI. Of course, as Tom says, that is a MAYBE and is up to the City.
@Marti – I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that it was exploitive to reprint Ms Segal’s public comments here on Village14.
Sorry for the confusion.
Tom Davis, in states like Utah who are aggressively responding to and reducing homelessness it is a state wide approach with incentives given to cities and towns that are open to housing for those in need. Unfortunately in our state we have cities and towns like Newton, where I have lived my entire life, reject housing for all and is becoming a city for the wealthy only.
Imagine if the Engine 6 project had been allowed to go forward, it is possible that this former Newton resident could have again been living here. It was only a few months ago that the City of Newton entered into a settlement agreement over the Engine 6 dispute in which it agreed that by May 12, 2016 it will identify at least 5 sites that *may* be suitable to develop a total of 9-12 units for chronically homeless individuals with disabilities. Wow – a whole year to come up with a few possibilities. My 2 cents: in addition to the affordable units, ASP should set aside at least 2 units for housing of disabled individuals who have struggled with chronic homelessness. Unlike the Waban site that was so vigorously opposed, Austin Street provides all the amenities that opponents of Engine 6 claimed were lacking in Waban. And, the City could take a great step forward in meeting the agreed goal of prioritizing housing for the chronically homeless.
Howard,
I think it’s unfair to say that Newton is a city or the wealthy only. Newton still has 7.3% affordable housing, which is fairly close to the state threshhold of 10%.
I just want to put a few words in about andrea. The last time I heard from her she put a message on my machine from Cambridge because she was kicked out of Newton housing. That had to be 3-4 years ago.
I have spoke to many people in Andreas position. When I ran for Mayor against Mayor Cohen(2005), many people approached me about how “corrupt” (many people used the same word…corrupt) Newton housing is. One person came to everyone’s lips, that is Jonathan (I don’t remember his last name), he was related to Mayor Cohen and was ahead of Newton housing.
Another person still emails/mails me about a situation she is having in a private condo. How her condo association has singled her out and turns off the heat in the winter and turns it on in the summer, etc. On her email list is the Mayor, Ruth Balser, Kay Khan, Cindy Creem, Barney F, The POTUS and me. Am I good company or what???
I can’t help her and I feel bad. I had her on my show as a guest and I just can’t help her. It makes me feel bad. There are a lot of people in Newton that are in a bad situation and we have ignored them. Everytime I approach someone they make a face like I’m crazy. It’s a difficult issue to help out in only because we have a reputation of being so wealthy.
Tom I said it was becoming a city for the wealthy but it still has great opportunities to expand its affordability with a diverse housing stock by creating creative zoning ordinances.
Tom, I know Ms. Segal brought her condition to the public but I don’t think it is appropriate to continue to discuss it without knowing all the facts and clearly you don’t. You stated that she was “kicked out of Newton Housing” that is untrue and to the contrary the NHA worked on her behalf to find alternative housing. Your accusations are unfounded and not based on the documented facts.
Howard, thats what she said on the message.
If folks want to have an actual discussion of ASP’s projected profit and loss, that is going to be very difficult without knowing the construction costs, the cost that the delays in approvals, the construction and permanent financing, the rents for the market rate units (not the projected rents, but the rents actual tenants are willing to pay), interest rates, any interest rate hedge, staffing costs, vacancy assumptions, replacement reserves and assumptions, build quality, and the usual project operating expenses. Perhaps Emily Norton’s mention of $14,000,000 is accurate or perhaps it is complete bull, but it would depend on a whole host of facts, and certain changes can make a big difference either way. I say that as a warning to both sides not to put too much stock in long term profit estimates for a real estate project that hasn’t been built or leased up yet. Anyone claiming to have done a long term analysis can easily move the needle in either direction, that is why most folks don’t put much stock in them.
Here is what I can tell you:
1) Evaluating a project based on long term profitability only captures a small piece of the puzzle.
2) It is important to consider developer risk as well. Is the loan recourse or nonrecourse to ASP? In other words, is the bank’s collateral the project, or can they go after the principals in ASP? Also, what rents are required for stabilizing the property? How much money does ASP need to put into the deal in equity to get the deal to pencil out? Folks asked about the upside for the project. I can’t accurately answer that. But the downside is having the bank foreclose (and therefore ASP would lose their equity investment in the property). If the loan is a recourse loan guaranteed by the principals of ASP, the downside risk is having the make the bank whole as well. Real estate risk is real. Let’s not make it out that ASP is just being handed guaranteed profit by the city. That is not how it works.
3) ASP is taking risk in other ways, namely by investing time and money in this project. If the Board doesn’t approve it, ASP is out money for plans, staffing, time, etc. Newton has managed to put forward a slow moving and complicated process, which is a negative in terms of maximizing value.
4)Let’s talk profit. Folks considering the value of the project in 20 years are missing the whole picture.
5) This is a rental property. If things go as planned there should be significant yearly cash flow in excess of debt and operating expenses. If ASP is able to lease up the entire building at high rents, it will likely try and refinance any debt, either to lock in rates, lower rates, or to do a take-out refinance where their equity is replaced by additional debt (as the project that is leased up is worth more, they are able to take out equity with debt and still maintain a loan to value ratio that would be acceptable to most lenders.
6) So ASP can make money from cash flow, cash out refinance, and eventual sale of the property. In addition, the deal may have included overhead or other items in the construction budget.
I mention all of this because folks wanting to know the developer’s potential profit seem more interesting is using it as a talking point than any useful purpose, and without an understanding of return on investment, risk potential, time value of money, or any of a host of items that we’d need to consider to have a serious conversation about this particular topic.
But here is what we do know. There was an RFP process. Independent bids came in. The offer prices ranged from nothing to 5 million. As such, my conclusion is that 5 different companies familiar with the analysis above ran the numbers and came up with prices (as high as possible in an effort to win the big but not higher than what would earn them enough profit to want to do the deal) that show us roughly what the property is worth for their particular project. I agree with the column that Greg posted for the most part. If you look at each bid, what I think we see is that with the recent adjustments this is an acceptable deal for Newton. We could have made more with a larger project. We could have had more affordable housing, but that would have needed additional subsidy, which wasn’t locked in.
@ Lisa P – Right on!
As a taxpayer and resident, I would take no issue with the City working with a nonprofit partner to maximize low-income housing that alleviates homelessness, fuels income diversity and fulfills 40B requirements . I’d champion that worthy vision. Creating genuinely affordable housing in Newton is an admirable and achievable goal– one that doesn’t involve giving a sweetheart 20 year lease on valuable (and dwindling) public, commercially located developable land. Newton needs to pursue its own vision on affordable housing — not be strong-armed by profit-driven developers that hold 40B over our communal heads. Really, really disturbed by this continuing development model that houses folks at the opposite poles of income inequality in the same building with the low income residents getting the stripped down, third-class versions while riding the elevator with fellow tenants in another solar system of income paying so much more for the same address.. I’d be totally behind a housing project that is modest in its amenities and offers the opportunity for low-income families to give their kids a shot at a better life via attendance in our excellent school system. . Or just for a first-year Newton teacher or a firefighter to afford. Also, Jeff Pontiff’s info about how a totally different formula was used to evaluate the impact of Riverside vs. the impact of Austin St. is really disturbing and points a big finger at how we evaluate development proposals. Why doesn’t THE CITY OF NEWTON have a formula that is applied to all development projects?
@Howard: Several members of the Board were aware of this situation at the time and tried to intervene. (docket items 172 – 10 and 207-10) As you know, since you were and have been a member of the Newton Housing Authority, this is a very complicated and sensitive situation which is why this should never have been posted on this blog.
What Amy said. I have heard more details and from that all I can say is it appears someone is trying to use this woman’s difficult personal narrative for their own political purposes. I think this whole thread should be removed.
Given that she’s now living in an emergency shelter, is it safe to say that the attempted intervention by the aldermen and the efforts by the NHA were both failures?
Docket 207-10 implies that this may indeed have been a unique situation, but in a community like this, no individual should be removed from public housing and left to fend for him or herself.
Regardless of the implied complexities of this case, I’m extremely disappointed to learn that our leaders and government were unable to prevent such an outcome.
I second Emily’s comment. I don’t believe this individual intended to invite scrutiny of her personal situation by speaking in a public forum. I wish Ms. Segal well and equally wish that the City of Newton would get behind its commitment to aid the chronically homeless and disabled with actions and not merely pretty words.
Michael I understand your concerns but this case is very complicated and very difficult to discuss in this forum.
Amy I agree with you.
I was at the hearing the night Ms. Segal testified. I thought it was an uncomfortable, yet important moment.
I did not know who she was. I did not know her story. But I was moved by the fact that she made the effort to be there (getting to City Hall is not easy if carless). I was moved that she was willing to share her story. So were many others. Given the unusually large number self-appointed housing experts who comment here on Village 14 and at public hearings, her perspective added something genuine. Sorry Alderman Norton, I fail to see how this falls onto one side of the political debate or the other, unless you’re saying that the folks who say they want to help the people who live here and only oppose importing poor people aren’t being sincere.
I decided to post her comments this week, after thinking about it for a few days, without providing any political context. I didn’t even mention that her testimony came at the Austin Street hearing.
I hoped it would further the ongoing discussion our community is having about housing and about economic diversity. I was sorry the conversation devolved so quickly into vague, unsubstantiated personal details. I wish I was watching the blog when Tom posted his first comment because I would have removed it with the hopes the discussion would not devolve down the path it ultimately did. Perhaps I should have known better.
But here’s the reality folks: Every story of homelessness comes with an uncomfortable story. Failed efforts to help. Misunderstandings. Red tape. Frustration. Indignation.
So no, I’m not going to remove this thread (unless Ms. Segal asks me to) because it won’t change the facts that this women testified in front of our elected leaders or that our system was unable to accommodate her, for whatever reason.
If people are uncomfortable with that, that’s because this is uncomfortable stuff.
I won’t remove this women’s words. But I will give anyone who wants the rest of the evening to tell me why that makes me an awful person and I will then I will close comments on this thread tomorrow.
KarenN, it has been proven through out multiple generations in multiple places that housing diverse economic earners is by far the best alternative. That’s why “projects” never worked. It’s perverse to think that people with different incomes have nothing in common. Fair housing laws set out size and other requirements.
Howard, I can appreciate that, and I hope this can at least lead to a broader discussion of how to address the issues of homelessness in this community.
It’s too bad that this, like 95% of the discussions on this board, has to be viewed through the prism of Austin Street.
People, there’s more to the world than that one silly project. Imagine if you all got worked up over something of greater consequence. Think of the amazing things that could happen!
I also think this thread should be removed. I don’t believe this woman’s personal situation should be the subject of open discussion here.
I appreciate the fact that this issue is being talked about on this blog. Thats what accountability is all about. Finding something wrong and making people act.
@Greg. Austin Street is really fraying the nerves on both sides of the debate. I didn’t read Tom Davis initial comment as an attack on you personally. I read it as the account of a guy who knows from first hand experience what it is to be chronically homeless in Massachusetts.
He made made the salient point that a combination of mental illness, drugs and alcohol are probably the major contributor to the problem, but not, by any means, the sole contributor. I seconded that because some of my volunteer activities have put me in contact with people that are or were chronically homeless. Some of them have died, others are still homeless, but still others have rebounded successfully.
Finally, Tom made what to me is an obvious point; the Austin Street or any other 40 B or special permit project is not set up to address the problem of chronic homelessness. And Greg, I don’t think that’s what you intended to convey.
@Greg. That last sentence should have read “I don’t think you (Greg) implied that Austin Street was set up to address the problem of chronic homelessness.” I’ve known you long enough to know you are deeply concerned about social justice and environmental issues. Just acknowledge that people on the other side of Austin Street are as deeply concerned about these challenges.
@Bob: I was referring to the comment from Tom Sheff, which was about the individual, not Tom Davis’ comment, which was about homelessness in general and the direction I had hoped the conversation would head. Sorry about the confusion.
And I agree that decent folks on both sides of the Austin Street debate care about this problem, which is why I questioned Aldermen Norton’s suggestion that this was done for political gain.
Ending homelessness is simple but hard. It requires two things: housing and courage from our leaders. Lack of public funding, zoning restrictions and local resistance to developing more housing are reasons the problem is worse in Massachusetts than in almost any other state. In 2011 in Massachusetts, 38% of all homeless persons were children. Since 2007, the number of families in shelters has increased 75 percent, from under 2,500 families to a peak of around 4,800 families in early 2015. Currently, around 1,250 of those families are sheltered in motels across the state because there was no room in traditional shelter facilities.
Austin Street will not and cannot solve the homelessness problem in Newton. But it is a start at addressing the affordable housing crisis that affects low to moderate income families and individuals in Newton and across the Commonwealth. I worked for months with housing advocates, the city and the developer to get a commitment to include 6 units of housing for households earning under 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) that are eligible for Section 8 vouchers.
No one development and no single program is ever going to end homelessness and fully address the affordable housing crisis in our area. But every journey starts with a single step. It is time that we stop pretending that poor people do not exist, or that there is enough affordable housing for low to moderate income people living in Newton today. Fully half of all households and individuals in Newton making under 80% of AMI are paying far more for housing than they can afford (according to HUD, anyone paying more than 30% of their income for housing is “cost burdened”).
This woman, who had the courage to come and speak truth to power and advocate for more affordable housing is by no means alone, right here in one of the more affluent communities in Massachusetts. It is time to stop wringing our hands and get to work on addressing this critical need, and Newton must do its part. I think Greg was right to highlight her story, because it is representative of the stories I have heard from so many others right here, right now, in this city.
Greg,
Ms. Segal’s testimony provided ethos and pathos, but it did not provide logos where the project she was advancing (obvious to the casual reader that it was Austin Street), will not help her or those similarly situated. I trust that your reference to “vague unsubstantiated personal details” was not intended as an invitation to anyone to provide substantiation, but that is why I object to this thread. And no, I’m not suggesting that you are a terrible person for posting this, nor do I think you did so to invite public speculation or discussion of this individual’s personal circumstances. I don’t doubt at all that you shared this because it is powerful, it is moving, and her words speak to how we as a society have failed her and others who are similarly situated. But her comments were provided in the context of a public hearing on a development which will provide no solution for the very poor.
You’re very right that every person who is chronically homeless has a back story, nearly always tragic. Ms. Segal bore witness to the failings of “the system” but with due respect, I think those failings go far beyond just the Newton Housing Authority.
Greg, you said: “I wish I was watching the blog when Tom posted his first comment because I would have removed it with the hopes the discussion would not devolve down the path it ultimately did. Perhaps I should have known better.”
Why would my comments lead to this. The fact that Andrea reached out to me to try to stay in Newton shouldn’t change anyone’s mind about her or homelessness in general. Andrea wanted to stay inNewton, she wasn’t getting anywhere with the elected officials, she probably saw me on Newtv, or on an election ballot and tried to get help from me. I couldn’t help her due to the fact that I didn’t have the power to help out. I wanted to. I tried.
That still doesn’t take away from the fact that she was out there, no one at city hall could help her our and she still remains homeless.
I give her credit for still being out there and attempting to comeback instead of giving up.
Bob, maybe you are not “hearing” what is being said by many people “on the other side of Austin Street” but MANY people are not “deeply concerned” about chronic homelessness. I’m sure you, and some, are concerned but you are making an over generalization about the concern of others. I don’t know if you are not listening, are choosing to ignore or are actually not hearing the callous disregard for human suffering that is pervasive in Newton right now. As the decision on Austin Street grows closer the voices grow louder and more shrill.
Greg, I’m puzzled by your post about your innocent intentions.
I believe you were “moved that she was willing to share her story,” and by the story itself, as am I and many people posting here.
But I believe your stated good intentions of posting her story on V14 were clouded by political motives and that your explanation is disingenuous. You knew what you were doing.
You say you posted without “any political context” and didn’t “even mention her testimony came at the Austin Street hearing.” You did however say that her testimony was given at the Nov 12 Land Use Meeting.
You want us to believe that you did not think readers of V14 did not know that the Nov 12 Land Use hearing concerned decisions on Austin Street?
In addition the retweet from the Friends of Austin Street with her testimony front and center was also V14 at the same time.
How could you not “see how this falls onto one side of the political debate” when it fits perfectly within the context of “import poor people,” another posting you made?
I don’t know the particulars behind Ms Segal’s trip to City Hall but as you said it would not “be easy if carless.” (Irony anyone?) I don’t know if she reads the Tab, gets emails about public hearings or reads V14. I don’t know what she would think about her story being posted on an Internet blog or as the content of a letter from the Friends of Austin Street. I don’t know if she has the resources to ask you to take her story down.
I don’t believe she came to City Hall and gave testimony with the intention of having her situation discussed by one and all on a blog.
This prevalent situation of homelessness needs addressing in Newton and is an “uncomfortable” subject. In the context of Austin Street, it serves no purpose but to exploit a woman’s situation. It wasn’t because it is uncomfortable, but because people care about her situation that the conversation ventured into the territory of what needs to be done.
I was present when Ms. Segal got up to speak, after waiting quite a while with her hand raised to be called on. When she spoke, you could have heard a pin drop in the Aldermanic Chamber. While one could certainly draw an inference, beyond criticizing the comments of some of the previous speakers in opposition to the project, she did not actually indicate whether she supported or opposed the Austin Street project. Rather, she made an impassioned plea about the need for more affordable housing and, in particular, housing for people who are homeless. That is why I think it was worth highlighting her story here.
In terms of why her story is on this blog and its relevance – I think Ted nailed it- that and the fact that she presented her story in a public forum before the Land Use Committee.
@Marti. I don’t think it’s even a question of how many people are “concerned about chronic homelessness”; it’s more the fact that it simply isn’t on many people’s radar screen here in Newton because most people here know little about it. They haven’t experienced it.
With all the effort it must have taken Ms. Segal to get to City Hall, I would think she would have shared an opinion on Austin Street if that’s what prompted her testimony. (Include me among the many people who spoke to Ms. Segal several times while she was living in Newton Housing Authority housing.) I understand why people would assume that Greg’s post was in support of Austin Street, but if Greg were to post a disclaimer every time he started a thread that some people might find objectionable, well, we’d have a very different Village 14. Like it or not, Greg is responsible for the vast majority of conversations on this blog.
Homelessness is an uncomfortable topic that has little to do with Austin Street. It’s important for us to hear stories like these.
I was siting next to Ms.Segal as she spoke. I was very surprised by her testimony as it was not an appropriate place for her problems. Several women sitting behind S. Oran and who wore Yes Stickers quickly cheered and clapped as Andrea finished. Mark Laredo loudly smashed his gavel to silence the applause. Then dead silence. Everyone there understood the implication of Andrea’s speech. The No people were stunned by this tactic.
I thought afterwards that the incident would be forgotten publicly. Not so, here it is again and I’m still amazed that such a maneuver has been injected into this entire quagmire of the Austin St. gov’t/private development partnership.
@Colleen: A public comment period before the government body that is concerned with housing and development isn’t “an appropriate place for [a homeless person’s] problems”? So what is?
Now good people can and have disagreed over whether or not or how Austin Street helps address homelessness.
But I’m having trouble understanding what makes anyone qualified to judge whether or not is was “appropriate” for her to speak.
I don’t know Ms. Segal. Unless folks feel she is unable to make a reasonable judgement as to her actions, I don’t understand the reactions here. She chose to speak at a public hearing. The last few public hearings I’ve attended, there were various pleas, discussions and speeches that were slightly off topic but connected to the issue. For instance at the Cabot meeting for the school parking lot, many speakers spoke about close the road near the school, others were abutters who were against the traffic flow. The meeting was at Parks and Rec, so folks were tangentially on topic. I don’t see the difference here.
What I have noticed though, as other posters have mentioned, is that talking about homelessness is hard. Besides the various issues we witnessed regarding neighborhood objections with the Engine 6 project, there is also misunderstandings and fears regarding drug abuse, mental illness, other addictions, etc. Some of it is that many of us want to solve a problem with a clear cut solution (homeless issues? Build more housing!) but it also involves long term supportive services, counseling, addiction services, job training, etc. for many of the long term homeless.
I’ll also note that I think a session on homeless issues in Newton would draw a 10th of the crowd of an Austin Street discussion. I wish that wasn’t the case. If Ms. Segal wanted to get her point of view out to the widest audience possible, this was the forum. Would we be talking about this aspect of affordable housing in Newton without her speech?
In my mind, Ms. Segal can talk at whatever public forum we have. If she is encouraged to come by one side or the other, I’m fine with that as well. I’ve attended many of these sessions. Sometimes I get frustrated as well when an opponent or a supporter makes an argument I deem manipulative or relying on emotion. I’m sure folks on the other side of an issue have opposite reactions. But isn’t that the very definition of a public forum? Just my 2 cents, and I should disclose I was not there in person to hear her speak.
Btw, When zoning comes around, I intend to talk to every one of my elderly neighbors and make sure they understand the implications for them in changes to the zoning code. Many of them wouldn’t present well in a public forum, but I will encourage them to express their concerns. If not there, where can they do it?
I promised last night that I would close this thread to comments today. And Fig’s post seems like the perfect place to do just that.