There’s been a fair amount of hysteria here and elsewhere, over a recent proposal by the Newton’s Economic Development Commission over banks in our village centers.
Let’s be clear, headlines to the contrary, the EDC is not pushing for a “ban on new banks in our village centers.”
I’ll say that again: It is not a ban. It’s not even a moratorium.
What the EDC is proposing is that banks be required to obtain a special permit from the Board of Aldermen if they want to open on the street level of one of our business districts. Furthermore, the proposal is only for one year; the EDC is not suggesting adding a new permanent requirement.
I give the EDC a lot of credit for starting this important conversation about the mix of businesses in our villages; the empty storefronts there now; and what happens to them as the economy slowly rebounds. Hopefully this proposal – and others like it – open up the doors for a good conversation about the overall vitality of our village centers.
Newton is fortunate to have a number community banks that give back to our city in so many ways. They donate money and staff time to non-profits and are always there supporting our village days, beautification efforts and student groups. They’re a vital part of our village mix but it is totally appropriate to be concerned about how we achieve the proper balance.
Is this a city-wide solution for a Newton Centre problem? How many other villages feel blighted by too many banks? Thinking about the other villages, it seems that we have two nail salons for every bank. Will they require a special permit?
Bla, bla, bla… Sometimes you just have to come right out and say it. This proposal is a bad idea! Not even worthy of a second blog thread. So why all the pussy-footing around, Greg?
I must be missing something. Why would a bank require a special permit?
Is this a proposal to use special permits to manage what mix of businesses are allowed to open in a village center? If so, that sounds like an extremely bad idea to me.
Since several people seem concerned about the use of the word “ban” in the online version of a recent TAB story on restricting banks in the village centers, I want to point out a truism of newspapering — headlines are always the editor’s fault.
Sorry folks. I’ve tweaked the headline — changing “ban” to “restriction.”
But now I’ve got to question the headline on this blog post — who called banks “evil?” Not us.
Which is worse for a village center, a first floor bank or a vacant store front? Although Newtonville now has Cambridge Savings Bank in the old Discovery Shop location (the Discovery Shop closed in June of 2011), the former Jin Mi Oriental Foods shop location is still vacant after a year.
In the Highlands we are losing BOA which was the branch I would walk to for my banking needs. Having another bank replace it would not be a loss to the village IMO.
On this issue I think I agree with the “No Restrictions” folks. It would be better to improve the conditions for new businesses entering the villages. We may get a few more banks but overall better conditions would improve diversity of businesses.
Thanks all for being part of the conversation on this.
Just to put this out there again, what the EDC is pushing for is a program that supports a wider variety of uses into villages in an easier fashion. In order to do that, we also need to recognize that market forces right now favor uses that have capital and are not subject to many regulatory constraints in the City code – banks being a clear example.
The more important things we need to do as a City are to fix regulation, and create the and business assistance programs that should hopefully increase and broaden the pool of businesses that can be stable, lucrative tenants AND increase village vitality.
Without getting these parts fixed, a temporary special permit measure is meaningless.
As Greg notes above, banks are a critical component of the community. Additionally, some of our villages can be described as “underbanked” (I’m thinking here of Nonatum, the Highlands, and perhaps even Upper Falls). The only factor that the proposed measure puts in place is a mechanism for the City to weigh in – Just as it would for many other uses.
Groot’s point on removing the barriers and improving the conditions is spot on. The sooner we can get these done, the less we need the other safety valve measures.
Here’s the docket language: #162-12 THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION requesting a oneyear moratorium, starting immediately, where no bank shall be allowed to
be built or opened for business on the ground floor of any building in any
Business District within the city unless granted a Special Permit from the
Board of Aldermen. [05-17-12 @ 4:18 PM]
OK, so it is a “moratorium.” Or it is being called one. Although since you can open a street level bank if you obtain a permit, I’d suggest that moratorium is the wrong word.
No one would be happier than me if Bank of America disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow. In general, I really dislike the banking industry, and I despise B of A in particular. Nevertheless, banks are an essential ingredient of our economy and to our community. They provide jobs. They pay rent. They pay taxes. They lend money. And they absolutely do NOT keep other viable businesses from locating in any of our village centers. What exactly is the problem we’re trying to address here?
Amy, and Chris,
What might be the basis for approval or denial of a special permit for a first floor bank? Is there anything found in our current ordinances that would allow a bank to anticipate what specific provisions they would need to meet to be granted approval?
@Steve, there is nothing in our ordinances right now. Aldermen Danberg, Albright, Johnson and I docketed an item a year ago that has not yet been discussed in the Zoning and Planning Committee:
Section 30-24 sets forth general criteria that apply to all special permits:
Speaking as a co-docketer, and as chairman of the Land Use Committee which reviews and recommends whether to approve special permits, I would insist on specific criteria in any ordinance regarding special permits for particular uses, including this one. In addition, there are some village centers where this overlay might not be necessary (e.g., Nonantum, Newton Highlands). The board of aldermen, assuming it adopts such a measure, would have to approve which village centers it would apply to as well as the boundaries of the overlays.
The EDC is strongly committed to enhancing the vitality of village centers. The 1 year special permit requirement for banks is intended to provide time to fix quirks in the Newton Zoning where some uses (i.e. restaurants) require a special permit, while banks are allowed as of right.
More information can be found on the City’s websites:
EDC letter supporting 1 year special permit requirement for banks is here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=44517 , and the
The EDC proposal on what to do during the one year period cis here:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=44520
@Phil– Aside from this perceived need for “enhancing the vitality of village centers”, [which I have no objection to], what is the specific problem the EDC is attempting to fix with this proposal?
@Mike My opinion: Banks are allowed as of right while many uses that are perceived to enhance the vitality (i.e restaurants and other) require a special permit. Alderman Hess-Mahon and land use are starting to address the disparity, and the 1 year special permit requirement was to provide time for the board to act.
Thanks, Phil.
My opinion: Somewhat ambiguous but worthy objective, being dealt with in entirely the wrong way. Maybe someone can explain how making it more difficult for banks is going to make it easier for restaurants? Given the stated objective, wouldn’t it be simpler to eliminate the permitting requirement for restaurants?
This is one of those “be careful what you wish for / because you might just get it” proposals…
The biggest beneficiaries will be Bank of America, Citizens, and all the large banks who are already tenants in existing locations.
Biggest losers [along with commercial landlords], will be small, upstart banks, looking to expand and compete with the larger banks. For example, my strongest banking relationship is with Rockland Trust. I spent years trying to convince them to locate a branch in this area, which they did near Shaw’s in Newtonville. The EDC’s proposal puts them at an immediate competitive disadvantage. There are clearly consequences to this proposal that have not been fully contemplated.
@Mike I agree, simplifying the permitting process for all uses would be very good, and I hope that the board considers this option as a way to remedy the current situation.
which goes back to my original comment that the BO24 is overstuffed with individuals just looking for things to justify their existance and they are the problem not the banks, nail salons, or pizza joints. At least the mayor seems to get it that the BO24 shouldn’t be mingling and attempting to control business. enuff already!
isn’t it time they should start the debate on how well the sidewalk snowshoveling ordinance is doing…
HL Mencken said for every complex question there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong. The problem here is complex, and the answer(s) is(are) going to have to be multi-faceted, comprehensive and above all fair.
Phil identifies part of the problem which is that many businesses need to come in for a special permit in order to be able to locate in village centers. But it is not because of the use per se (although restaurants with over 50 seats do require a special permit). Primarily, it is a parking requirement that has more to do with shopping malls than village centers. We have an adequate supply of parking in most of not all of our village centers. The problem is availability of spaces. Residents living in or around village centers clamor for parking restrictions so no one will park on their street; time restrictions to discourage long term and commuter parking; meter rates that fail to take advantage of high demand for prime spaces near stores. We need to reform or repeal our parking requirements, overhaul our parking management strategies, and modernize and mark our meters to market rates (say that five times fast).
Protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, the proliferation of nonretail businesses like banks on the street level in multi-floor buildings in village centers IS choking out small, locally owned retail and restaurant businesses. Businesses that are only open 9-5 make village centers look like a ghost town after hours, making them uninviting to patrons who might otherwise shop or go out to eat. In these touch economic times, it is just one more nail in the coffin for many existing businesses and an obstacle to new ones. It isn’t that banks and other nonretail uses are bad for business, it is that nonretail uses on the street level do not produce the requisite amount of pedestrian traffic to give other local retail and restaurant businesses a chance to survive.
There are a lot of things that will have to happen before we can fix this problem, but a short-term moratorium is not a bete noir–it is a breather. So we should all take a deep breath and get going on coming up with solutions to a complex problem.
This is the utter, unabashful silliness of those that get elected in Newton and want to stay elected. They, as in multiples and multiples of them, want to show their contrived liberalism by proposing crap like selling pot at retail outlets, but when it gets down to a shipowner feeding their family with rental income they are not shy to say hold on there pal — you need to take yet lower rent against your investment because we want pot and not finance. What kind of logic is this??? No shame
God this makes me angry This is not what being liberal is all about (hating finance, wanting voters they care more about shops) being liberal is looking at a lawn worker or former housewife forced out on her own and putting them in a finance job, not selling lottery tickets or slices of pepperoni pizza!
Then the vote loving pol in Newton will get into a discussion about those disgusting casinos where rich folks will sit around and listen to Tom Jones after eating slaughtered bovine with a baked potato — those casinos that WILL employ THOUSANDS of former lawn workers and battered housewives, potentially, and Newton pols say HELL NO CASINO — FINANCE IS THE CLASS ACT!
and Groucho Marx said: Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others..
I hope you are not putting me in the NO Casino camp, Hoss. MA may be too late to the party to reap the rewards, and there certainly are costs, but in a state with its own lottery I cannot reconcile that fact with opposition to casinos. I am against slots because they don’t bring jobs but I think casinos should be allowed. No doubt gambling ruins some people and their families, but the legislation MA passed would use tax revenues from casinos for treatment of compulsive gambling.
Schlock, you are a funny guy. As Rufus T. Firefly, Groucho also said “whatever it is, I’m against it.” Requiring a special permit for nonretail uses at street level levels the playing field, instead of tipping it further. I’ve done my part as alderman and chairman of land use to make the special permit process more certain, predictable and fair. The biggest enemy of progress on the BOA, IMHO, is parochialism, not activism.
Ted, please study how other states have handled slots under a more friendly gaming environment. They use the revenue to feed many jobs including the industry of horse racing and the thousands of jobs around that industry including the spin-off benefits of resort towns near classy tracks (unlike suffering downs and the dirty pols that love that hell hole). Entertainment is entertainment — we (Mass.) make hold lottery entertainment closer than slot machines because lottery gets us hundreds of millions of tax relief. Slots give 97-98% back to the player – lottery gives 75% back. Slots have the highest payout ratio of ALL casino games and they are simple to understand which is why granny and uncle joe love them. If uncle joe loves pot — we say let’s not build an expensive structure to stop that. If uncle joe loves slots we say the scratch tickets (paper slots) are better revenue generation for Mass so let’s stop that quick. The argument against slots is a hidden arguement to keep lottery revenue. It’s that simple.
@Hoss, I am not sure I agree with you but thanks for providing an additional perspective. I will try to keep an open mind.
@Ted– I have to really question the logic behind some of your comments regarding this proposal. Aside from the fact that as constituted this proposal would favor large banks [like Bank of America] who have existing spaces, and put smaller banks looking to grow at a disadvantage…
Can you name a businesses or two that wanted to locate in one of the village centers, but were precluded from doing so because of a bank occupying a specific space? I’ve heard plenty of small business owners over the years say “rents are too high”, but I can’t recall ever hearing a business owner say they could not find a space for their business. And if that were the case, and space were not available, that would be a very good indication of village vitality, not exactly a problem requiring government intervention in the commercial real estate market.
You referred to banks causing some sort of “ghost town” effect at night, because they close earlier than some other businesses. But no village has more banks than Newton Centre, and I see the Centre as having a very vibrant nightlife.
Again, I think this proposal is trying to fix a problem that does not exist, and fails to contemplate many of the resulting negatives. It is and will be perceived as an anti-business measure.
Very good Ted. Please consider joining where Barney is leaving off in supporting internet gaming including the regulation and taxes that such support would get us, if you do not already.
BTW — I have only once been to a casino (I’m over 50) and aside from playing hosses legally I do not use internet gaming. Gambling does not excite me but our neighbors need a safe environment and we all need the lost revenue
Mike, our planning department spends a lot of time talking to landlords, local businesses and startups, as do members of the EDC, and I rely upon their information. But I freely admit that an overlay would not be useful or necessary in every village center.
Take West Newton, where I live. We now have a People’s Bank taking over a space that was vacant for years after a convenience store moved out. The bank actually is an improvement, and the landlord put some money into making the building ADA accessible (which it had never been before) so that has been a good thing, mostly. We now have at least 4 banks right in West Newton: BofA on the corner of Chestnut and Washington has its own building and parking out back; Sovereign, which has its own building on the corner of Highland and Washington and a parking lot out back; Village Bank, which is on the corner of Washington and Elm and has little or no parking of its own; and People’s Bank in the building on the corner of Waltham and Watertown where CVS has most of the first floor. We also have one nail salon, some professional service providers, and a few other nonretail uses on street level space in the village itself. Most of the rest is retail or restaurants except for the Cinema, NCSC, the PO, NPD HQ and the District Court. So it is a fairly good balance of uses, retail, restaurant, nonretail, civic and some nonprofits. I hope we will have some more mixed use and dense residential development in the village soon to add to the economic vitality of the area. I have also been trying to get the city and NWH together on building a parking structure behind the NPD that would serve the hospital as satellite parking during the day and provide offstreet parking for patrons of various businesses at night. That is a work in progress. But, all in all, I am not sure I would advocate for an overlay in West Newton. That is not to say I would not change my mind if circumstances change, but for now things are fairly balanced.
The aldermen in Newtonville and Newton Centre, however, have said they have a different dynamic going on. Street level space is going to nonretail uses that do not produce much pedestrian traffic, which is also what is needed to keep economic vitality going in our village centers. Landlords would rather keep space vacant waiting for a long term lease from a bank than rent short-term for less to retail or restaurant businesses. There are also a number of spaces that have blank facades with windows that are covered to hide what is going on inside or no windows at all. Vacancies hurt the vitality of these villages and the lack of transparency on the street level makes them uninviting for potential patrons. Indeed, even in West Newton, the prolonged vacancy in the space where People’s Bank moved in combined with CVS’s blank facade made the 4 story mixed use building on the corner of Waltham and Watertown Streets particularly uninviting. At least the bank now has windows that allow you to look in, but CVS still presents a very unfriendly front facade at the street level. Our docket item would address both those issues.
The special permit requirement, as I said before, would level the playing field, not tip it in anyone’s favor. Right now, because of the need for parking waivers via special permit, restaurants and some retail businesses are at a distinct disadvantage because there is no onsite parking and the requirements are higher than for banks and other nonretail uses. Before you say we should just eliminate the parking requirements, think about what it would be like if you went to a village center and you could not find a place to park within walking distance of where you wanted to go. Would you continue orbiting the neighborhood waiting for a space to open up or would you just go somewhere else? On the whole, given our car-centric culture, the default choice is generally going to be to drive someplace else that has parking.
I try to be thoughtful about proposals I put my name on. Occasionally, even I (!) may go off half-cocked. But this is one issue I have had a lot of time to think about and I think it is the right thing to do today to give us the breathing space to put in place a set of comprehensive reforms that will work tomorrow.