UPDATED: This appears to be a function of state law (61B), not of city law or practices. More later.
View Larger Map
The question I would be asking if I lived in Lower Falls: why is the City of Newton asking my neighbors and me to make accommodations and accept transit-oriented development in my neighborhood when, one stop down the D line, the potential site of a much better mixed-used development is a city-subsidized, private country club?
Make no mistake, the Riverside site should be developed, and more intensely than the neighbors would like. But, fairness dictates that the city not promote development on one site and subsidize non-development on another, better site.
Note: a nifty Google map is not appearing. I’m trying to figure out why.
@Sean, I can assure you that the folks who live on Longfellow asked the same question several years back when National Development built Arborpoint at Woodland Station.
And what was the answer?
I don’t object to having a country club there, but I do object to the city subsidizing it.
Arborpoint is not a country club. It is a “friendly” 40B that includes a significant number of affordable housing units. National Development built the garage for the T and apartments with some amenities. I am not sure what Sean meant, but the only country club I am aware of is the Woodland Golf Club across the street from the station.
Ted, I think mgwa was asking what response the Longfellow residents got from the city when they asked questions about the country clubs during consideration of Arborpoint.
Hoss, yes. I was referring to the tax breaks that Lucia describes in her reply.
Sean, By city-subsidized, were you referring to tax exemptions?
I believe Sean is refering to this:
“Meanwhile, Charles River Country Club in Newton — with its rolling fairways and carefully manicured putting greens — received a $381,000 tax break last year under a state law that exempts private country clubs from paying 75 percent of their property taxes.
According to the Newton assessor’s office, Woodland Golf Club also cut $301,000 on its tax bill last year and Brae Burn Country Club shaved $390,000 from its taxes. Counting Charles River, that’s more than $1 million in taxes that Newton cannot collect from three private, local institutions. Framingham and Marlborough country clubs also take advantage of the tax break, as do many other private country clubs across the state.” Boston Globe, 8/30/07
I believe most of these club member don’t live in Newton and that this is a tax break for millionaires and billionaires. I haven’t heard of any SILO (services in lieu of taxes) these clubs provide Newton.
It’s a bit off-subject, but if you type into the city assessing database “Commonwealth of Massachusetts” as owner, you’ll see a list of property with assessed value of $150MM. Did the state exempt (or partially-exempt) golf courses, but leave themselves exposed to local taxes? Seems nutty
As to the subject matter, that golf course looks very “developed” to me, and I’m guessing if Newton took it by eminent domain for the purpose of replacing it with a non-exempt property, the legal papers would start flying.
Hoss,
You don’t need to do anything quite so drastic. First, get rid of the tax exemption. Second, rezone the property for its best use according to the city’s vision. Third, assess the country clubs based on their market value as zoned.
I doubt very much that the clubs remain viable ongoing concerns with a tax burden that is based on the market value of the land. The land is too valuable.
At the risk of redundancy, it would not require government intervention to fix things. It’s government intervention — in the form of tax subsidies — which is distorting things.
I like me a round of golf. And, I don’t begrudge anyone a country club membership. But, there’s no reason for the city to continue policies that prevent the best use of land in the city and deny us some bucks in the treasury so that privileged families have a convenient place to play.
Sean – I do agree it’s an attractive site for what you’re talking about. But the article says it’s a state exemption, not Newton’s doing. No?
Hmmm. I missed that. I thought it was a local deal.
We need to put Ruth and Tom on that one. STAT.
Now we’re cookin w fire!
The city could probably rezone and re-assess. The Woodland Country Club lots are zoned single residence (and some seem wildly under-valued). Zoned multi-use, they’d probably be worth much more.
Wouldn’t be the same as getting rid of the exemption, but it would help.
If that’s not the leverage they used when begging for payments en lieu of tax, it should be next year. In fact, zone it for a walmart
I’m guessing the reason for the state exemption is to help keep what’s left of open space, open. Kind of like the breaks that farmland gets, even if it’s some rich person raising goats. If it’s true that the golf courses would not be viable without the tax break, and would sell out to developers, I don’t actually have a problem with the tax break.
Oops, I forgot, at least one alderman is an abbutter… Casino maybe?
See my update above. I’ve been operating under some incorrect assumptions. I’ll have more in a post later.
Julia,
As applied to this particular golf course, the state policy weakens. One of the biggest enemies of open space is sprawl. Smart growth, transit-oriented development is an antidote to sprawl. Protecting open space around existing T stations doesn’t make sense regionally.
There are three stations on the green line with significant chunks of golf-course abutting: Waban, Woodland, and Riverside.
Also, there is a growing sophistication about classifying open space. If open space is only available to a very limited group, it’s not as valuable as truly open space, open to the general public, even if for a fee.
Finally, imagine how Woodland would get re-developed. It’s more-or-less 100 acres. Can you imagine a plan that didn’t include a 10-20 acre park? A school with playing fields?
To my mind, that would be better open space than what we’ve got now.
I think Julia makes an important point about preserving open space. Given the option of having the City own the golf courses with no revenue and having them private with some revenue makes sense to me. If the private courses offer other value to the city residents all the better.
The issue of keeping golf course “Not Land for Development” came up on Thursday night during the Recreation and Open Space Plan meeting.
It’s an interesting philosophical question, whether we should fall on our swords and sacrifice some of our diminishing open space to prevent sprawl in places we don’t see and rarely go to. I’d kind of like to keep our green spaces and permeable surfaces here in Newton, or summers will feel even hotter.
Another consideration relative to the 75% tax break: golf courses probably use a lot less in city services than developed land, so it’s not necessarily a money-loser.
Julia,
There are two tensions at play here. You raise the tension between city v. regional benefit to density near a T station. It’s an important point.
But, as Lucia notes, there is also tension between very private open space of dubious environmental value and, because it’s private, of very limited recreational value and public open space. If Woodland were to sell to a developer, I cannot imagine a development that didn’t include significant benefits to the city like a park, a school with playing fields, bike or walking paths between Washington and Grove Street, a through street or two to relieve the burden on Grove Street, &c.
All the city has now is privately consumed open space that we can’t even enjoy from the outside, because it’s all fenced in. I think we’d get more meaningful open space with development.
But many taxes work in a way disproportionate to benefit. My property taxes are just a fraction of some families with the same number of kids with much more value to their address.
Julia – What are the benefits of keeping it open space? Golf courses aren’t really good for the environment – they suck up a lot of water and use a lot of pesticides. If it was a park we could all wander thru, then I can see the tax exemption. Other sports clubs in Newton pay taxes or pay Newton to help maintain the parks (softball/baseball teams, etc.). Why subsidize golf?
Did I hear someone say my name???
I did a show last night with Ron Lipof who is vice chair of the Economic development Committee and we briefly broached this exact subject. I think he concluded more research was needed to see if the idea was viable.
The reason the State tax break exists for golf courses is to preserve them as open space and offer a disincentive for development.
I’m an atheist myself, so I don’t pray. But for those religious folks in Newton I would highly recommend you pray like heck that tax break remains in place. Unless of course you want to start building the schools now for the hundreds of new children who will be living in the houses that would take the place of any single golf course. Golf course development is a Doomsday scenario for public school education in Newton.
If you want to generate more revenue from a golf course, the place to do that is at the one golf course owned by the City of Newton. The BOA should pre-approve plans for a new clubhouse, and sell that course with the approved plan to a golf course operator. That would bring the city between $10-15M.
Mike,
Developing the Woodlands (100+ acres) would be a boon to public education in Newton. We’re not talking tract residential development. That’s old-school. Develop Woodlands now and it would be a mixed-use development with a high proportion of commercial space. And, a development that size could easily pay for (and provide the space for) an elementary or middle school.
Think big!
Let’s just start building skyscrapers. Pack the kids into our schools and sit in traffic at all hours. Wooo Hoooo!!!
Kim writes:
If you live and work in a skyscraper near the T, you don’t have to get into traffic!
I know that’s what you’d like to see Sean. And what you believe you would see if a golf course were converted. But that’s not what I think would happen.
I look at the city in it’s entirety as one large, mixed use development. We have residential. We have commercial. We even have some industrial. So you’re suggesting that’s a beneficial formula you’d like to see repeated on a micro level [minus the industrial, I assume].
I have to ask you this, Sean… How’s it working out so far? You okay with run down school buildings? Overcrowded classrooms? If we ever lose one of these remaining golf courses to development, we’ll be remembering these times as the “good old days,” when we could actually deliver a decent public school education for our youngsters.
I’ve owned three golf courses, Sean. I’m familiar with the financial dynamic of the industry, and the development potential. The development of any one of these courses would change life as we know it in Newton.
Lucia, I agree with you on the pesticides issue (and fertilizers, if they drain into rivers and wetlands instead of being absorbed by the grass). But my solution would be stricter regulation of pesticides, especially anything with estrogen-mimicking or other carcinogenic properties, for all users, from my next door neighbor to office parks and golf courses. Not reducing the number of golf courses.
The main benefit I see is it’s not a heat island, the way the roads and driveways and to a lesser extent, rooftops, would be if it were developed. And rain that falls on a golf course is going back into the ground, not running off into storm drains.
Golf courses might seem like they use a lot of water, but is it more than would be used by office workers flushing toilets and homeowners doing laundry and washing dishes in that space if it were developed — all year long instead of mainly the summer? I have no idea. That would be something to worry about if we were in Arizona or Georgia or someplace with a chronic water shortage, but
we’re not. As far as I can tell, the Quabbin Reservoir seems to always be full or close to.
In a sense it may even be good to have a certain portion of the demand for Quabbin water be discretionary. It’s kind of a built-in cushion in the event of a sudden disruption in supply; it’s a lot easier to have emergency restrictions on golf course watering than household use.
And the way water/sewer billing works, MWRA to city, and city to residents, the
golf courses are probably helping to keep our water bills lower than they would be otherwise. I presume that as high volume users they’re paying the highest marginal rate on water used. And since we don’t have garden meters in Newton, they must be paying the sewer portion as well, even though most of their water is going into the ground, not getting metered as sewage that the MWRA would bill the city for. (Maybe Mike can answer this, having owned three?) And whatever volume they use makes a bigger base to spread fixed costs over — of both Newton’s department, and the city’s MWRA assessment.
Julia– Most golf courses use a natural onsite water source, not municipal water. Not being a golfer myself, I’m not familiar with the source of water for any of the Newton courses.
Speaking of water, I just noticed this event in the Tab calendar listings, at the Waterworks Museum in Chestnut Hill:
I was really going to start my taxes tomorrow, but this sounds too interesting.
Think back to the late 70’s when the failing Commonwealth Country Club optioned itself to a developer who, as I recall through the hazy mists at the back of my mind, filed a plan for 200 or so single-family homes on the approximately 80 acres. Ald. Baker and a group of abutters advocated a counter plan whereby the city took the property by eminent domain, conceded some of the property to the developer for condos along Kenrick St. and Algonquin Rd. and the City began operating the Newton Commonwealth Golf Course. After determining that the DPW and Parks & Recreation folks were not optimizing the facility, the operation was franchised out to a private operators. It is a contributor to the City (I think $250K plus a % of revenues per year) and offers residents an decent golf experience at reasonable rates.
Max– What an amazing memory you have. Whatever vitamin supplements you’re taking, I want in. I will add that at some point [maybe 1978-79] there was an auction, because I recall attending it and buying a few pieces of equipment for a course I operated at that time. At some point after the city purchased Commonwealth and contracted with a private operator, I remember the annual payment being $150K a year for a long time. I’m glad it’s up to $250K now. But with pre-approved permits for a new clubhouse, I’d estimate it’s value at between $10M-$15M. Even on the low end of that spectrum, I’d prefer to see it sold. With the proviso of course that it remain a golf course.
@Sean– I’ve been thinking about this thread off and on today, and decided to come back for a point of clarification.
While I disagree with your premise about the golf course – property tax issue, I agree whole heartedly with your recognition of the need for more revenue for the city, and the ability to achieve that revenue through growth. When you say “Think big!” you’re talking to the right guy.
The place where the city should “think big,” is along the air-rights corridor created by the Mass. Pike. This is nothing new. I’ve been advocating it for years. It’s the largest, undeveloped, build-able area in the City of Newton.
It is true that it costs more to build on platforms than on land. But there are positive aspects derived from that increased cost. Because it is expensive, developers will “thing big” in order to make the economics work. Larger, more expensive structures pay property taxes commensurate with value. So there’s a tremendous amount of revenue to be gained.
The other thing the high cost does, is eliminate the possibility of a 40B residential development. The economics just won’t support it. So any residential structures built on the Mass. Pike air-rights would be regulated by Special Permit, giving the City a large degree of control over any impact on our schools.
I would urge anyone who’s interested in new sources of revenue for this city, to go look at the Gateway Center in Newton Corner. It’s the tip-of-the-iceberg compared to what could be built on the rest of the air-rights. Stand on any of the bridges over the Pike between Newton Corner and West Newton Square. Look out at the open expanse of highway. Imagine how much money the city could be making if we developed that space. And remember to “Think BIG!”
Well, Mike, now that you’ve brought up the Gateway Center as an example of Think BIG, let’s think about what is really is. It is a barrier. Newton Corner was once one of the Villages of Newton. Gateway Center is now like the great wall of China. You can’t get from one side of Newton Corner to the other without surviving the Circle of Death. If we’re going to consider air-rights development, we’ve got to ensure that the plans are for “uniters”, not “dividers”.
@Max – To some degree the Gateway Center is a divider but the real divider is the Pike. Whether or not the Gateway Center exists, Newton Corner would still be slashed in half.
Down the road in Newtonville the Star Market built on air rights is a different case – it’s neither a divider nor a uniter. It’s really an expansion of the village retail space in to the Pike air space
When Setti became Mayor, I looked into this issue (with his permission) and the amount of money those platforms costs would force any developer to create a minimum of a 7-8 floor building in order to turn a profit. I don’t think that would fly in Newton. I’d love to be proven wrong, because it’s such a creative idea.
@Max– Jerry’s got it right. The Pike is the divider, not the Gateway Center. You’re mistaking the bandage for the wound. You’re attributing the traffic configuration to that property, but the “circle of death” is attributable to the construction of the Pike and its ramps, not the Gateway Center. The road existed before the building was constructed. By the way, that property is assessed at $41M, pays property taxes at the higher commercial rate, and spins off a heck of a hotel tax in addition to the property tax.
@Tom– Why do you believe you can’t build 8 story buildings in Newton? Isn’t the presence of the Gateway Center alone enough to disprove that opinion and demonstrate the viability of air-rights development? We also have other tall buildings in Newton, like Chestnut Hill Towers. Do you think people would rather look at tens of thousands of cars racing through the city everyday [for which we receive zero dollars], or buildings that could generate millions of dollars a year in revenue for Newton?
@Any doubters– Before the Pike was built, the space that it was built on was occupied by buildings.
The Pike was certainly already there. My point was not that the Gateway Center was the cause of the division, but rather that it offered no solution or even amelioration. It stands in cold isolation lending little healing for the wound the Pike tore through Newton Corner. If we are to rally around air-rights development, we must ensure that any use contributes to the vitality of the neighborhoods they join.
Max– I totally agree. It requires a comprehensive approach.
We’re about to enter a new era of economic expansion and real estate development. The city needs to get ahead of the curve now, so we can cultivate this asset. Mayor Warren should appoint an air-rights czar to pull all the necessary pieces together. There are issues to be worked out with the State. A plan should be put in place to solicit developers.
I’ve had many conversations about this over the years with major developers. They need a process to follow. Personally, I’d like to see the city establish an independent set of rules to govern air-rights development. If the city clearly establishes a process with rules and guidelines, there will be a lot of exciting proposals forthcoming. No one is going to invest the time or money into a conceptual proposal, without the approval process being established first.