The city’s Commissioner of Health & Human Services and the Director of Planning circulated a letter today outlining why they have recommended not funding the Engine 6 proposal to build a group home for the chronically homeless in Newton.
Our business is to focus on people and outcomes for people. We recommended against bringing the Engine 6 project forward in the Development Review Team on September 18, 2013 because we believe taking people and housing them in a fairly isolated area with all services available in Boston is not a formula for success.
Here are the facts as we understand them from multiple presentations by the Pine Street Inn and the developer:
The 9 people who would be housed would be chronically homeless with a disability
- We asked how services would be delivered and were told people would return to Boston on the T
- Individuals would sign on to a service plan each year with a counselor; a big component of the service plan would be attendance at AA or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. We asked where in Newton these meetings are held and whether these locations are accessible by public transportation. No answer was forthcoming.
- We asked where people would buy food since each apartment would have a kitchen. The answer was that they would take the T to Star Market in Chestnut Hill.
- Medical, mental health, job, education and any other services would be available in Boston by taking the T
- Pine Street Inn currently runs 500 units clustered from 6 to 50 units in Brookline and Boston. We asked how many people in these established units have jobs. The answer was 17%.
We want to focus on outcome measures for individuals in Newton. We asked for additional outcomes for those housed in other Pine Street Inn units and are still waiting for some of those answers. We cannot support spending limited CDBG money on housing that does not provide readily accessible services for those in need and that does not attempt to integrate residents into the fabric of our community.
Dori Zaleznik, MD
Commissioner of Health & Human Services
Candace Havens
Director or Planning
I think these are all legitimate concerns. It seems unrealistic to expect people with disabilities to schlep into Boston for important services. I’m very concerned if it’s correct that the Pine St. Inn and developer didn’t know where there were AA/NA services available.
If they are disabled they would qualify for the MBTA ride. This would transport them to and from doctor appointments or shopping or AA meetings.
Don’t really understand how transportation issues would be the reason to stop this program
Why not be honest and say you did not want homeless people in Waban
One things that jumps out at me as being completely disingenuous in this letter is the 2nd item. It took me about 45 seconds to look up the times and locations of all AA meetings in Newton. They’re held all over Newton, many T accessible, and include at Newton Wellesley Hospital which is about a 5 min walk from Engine 6.
If this was a significant factor in turning down the proposal, something is seriously wrong.
Similarly, why was taking the T to Star Market for food shopping a major obstacle. What am I missing here?
@mgma – I’m very concerned if our Director of Health & Human Services is unaware of the wide availability of AA services across the city.
For clarification the MBTA ride is a door to door transportation system and would allow them to go anyplace even places that are not T accessible.
Hey Joanne,
How about you be honest and see how the concerns on that list are legit and you are just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
I’ll tell you I don’t want homeless people in Waban especially under those circumstances.
You know what would help your argument? If you didn’t think the only obstacle and challenge to this project is that we don’t want homeless in our village.
@Joanne – please do not impute motives to other people. I have no problem with housing homeless people in Waban. As someone with a disability, I am very aware of what is and isn’t difficult, even with The Ride (which is notorious for its own problems). And, yes, I know there are AA meetings in Newton. The point is that the people setting up the program should know where they are, in order to assure that there are ones easily accessible by disabled residents.
Discouragingly, several pro-Engine 6 letters have been met by a formula response from the Mayor’s office. That the Mayor was so quick to churn out a rebuttal to his constituents’ concerns instead of exhibiting even a small desire to accomodate them indicates his inflexibility on this issue. Particularly distressing are two assumptions that underpin the letter: the first is that because the residents of Engine 6 will be going into Boston to receive services, they would not be “integrated… into the fabric of our community.” I certainly hope the Mayor’s flawed logic does not apply to me – I receive medical care at Children’s Hospital Boston – or else I would be out of a home.
Second, the Mayor assumes that because the residents of Engine 6 would not conform to his vision of a family-centric, middle class Newton, they are not welcome here. Perhaps only 17% of the residents will be employed. No wonder – they are *formerly homeless*. Never mind that the average age of the residents will likely be over fifty (which, in the years of the homeless, means over seventy). The Mayor’s struggle to accept that the residents of Engine 6 would not be financially and situationally identical to the average Newton resident is mind-boggling.
The letter devolves into a laundry list of “problems” with the Engine 6 proposal. Tellingly, it would have taken very little effort to come up with solutions to the problems that are highlighted in the letter. For example, the letter complains that “a big component of [residents’] service plan would be attendance at AA or Narcotics Anonymous meetings. We asked where in Newton these meetings are held and whether these locations are accessible by public transportation. None was forthcoming.” A simple Google search, however, reveals that there are at least two locations in Newton at which Narcotics Anonymous meetings are held and four at which Alcholics Anonymous meetings are held. All have bus stops within walking distance. It is distressing to think that neither the Mayor nor his staff would not do this simple research when it took this sixteen-year-old five minutes.
Continues the letter, “We asked where people would buy food since each apartment would have a kitchen. The answer was that they would take the T to Star Market in Chestnut Hill.” While I know from experience that the Star Market in Chestnut Hill is an easy trip from Waban by T, there are several other solutions in Newton. Easiest is the Waban Market in Waban Square, which stocks everything from the basic food necessities (eggs, milk) to Russian and Jewish products of all kinds. A review from Yelp: “I really like the place. It’s a nice alternative to the Shaws and Stop and Shops around.”
And so on. Clearly the Mayor and his administration is grasping at straws to try and justify his hasty and poorly-thought-out decision. This letter is flimsy and transparent.
Transportation is a big issue. Having a disability does not automatically qualify you for The Ride; you have to be “unable to board, ride, or disembark from public transportation as a result of a physical or mental disability; or require a wheelchair lift or other boarding assistance device that public transportation is not equipped to accommodate.” You also have to pay for each ride, share trips with other riders, and schedule them in advance – it’s not a taxi service. Yes, there are AA/NA meetings everywhere, and I’m sure the Newton officials are aware of that. The issue is that the developer/Pine St. didn’t have a ready answer as to the locations and types of meetings available, and their accessibility, even though it is a big part of the plan. Setting it up so that *most* critical services for a population without vehicles are a train or taxi ride away doesn’t seem to be setting them up for success.
Hattie,
These are chronically homeless people. What works for you and me on paper doesn’t necessarily work for them in practice. Every one of the concerns require more than just a simple walk as it might in a city like Boston. The more they have to rely on public transportation, the more likely it is to fail. You make a good point about the Waban Market but the rest of the concerns transportation issues makes this a prohibitive project.
Transportation is not the issue. This is easily solved with the MBTA ride or the Woodland T stop that is a five minute walk. It is not a private taxi service but works well for thousands in Massachusetts.
Why was this letter not published months ago?
Maybe Dori and Candace should sit in on an understanding our differences class in the NPS.
IF this is really about helping these chronically homeless people (and based on Candace’s and Dori’s letter above), please explain to me why locating this housing anywhere outside of Boston is preferable? Other than, say, there is a building available, an eager developer, and some funds at this City’s disposal?
Because some of those homeless people were originally living in Newton.
Jerry Reilly — For transparency sake, who was this letter addressed to? Was it a press release?
Hoss, not sure who else it went to but it was emailed back to anyone who emailed the Mayor in support of the project.
The difficult aspect of this specific controversy for me is that anyone that has done fundraising knows that Waban is the honeypot in terms of caring and generosity. It pains me that the community was put in the spotlight and at times classified as heartless, selfish, golden-spooners. Waban and Newton are good people with warm hearts and often the time and money to make positive change on a much larger scale than 9 beds.
I understand that, Hoss. My biggest problem with it, however, is the fact that the Mayor stopped the proceedings before the public comment period ended and did not allow the community access to the answers to their questions. He has put together committees of experts that spend hours of volunteer time reviewing plans – service on these committees (disclaimer: I serve on one, and served on another for many years) are by mayoral appointment. Yet he chose to ignore their findings and not allow the mandated public comment period. This is plain wrong. I can live with an outcome that I disagree with; we all know that everything cannot go our way in this world! What I find offensive is a blatant disregard for policy and procedure, this from an administration that promised better.
Native Newtonian — The timeline seemed uncomfortable. The mayor seemed to be put on the spot. In the matter of weeks he was asked either approve and be a good Democrat, or do what he did. In the same period a candidate for Mayor emerged that had experience in Affordable Housing. Coincidental?
The ethical requirement for City leaders should be the same ethical requirement for medical staff — DO NO HARM. Here was a very small proposal with small regional benefits that could have had a large adverse Waban impact. I couldn’t put a Burger King in Waban because it doesn’t fit, right? This wasn’t a Burger King, it was a supervised setting for a term “chronically homeless” that draws questions and outright concerns with new homebuyers. We all know there’s nothing special about Waban that makes a property valued at $2 million when it might be $750,000 in another area. There’s a delicate value built on impressions. Do no harm is not unreasonable.
@Hoss – Doesn’t that criteria imply that their could never be an any low income housing, halfway houses, group homes, etc ever built in Waban or other expensive neighborhoods for the same reason?
Jerry Reilly — I don’t think it does. There are formerly homeless living in affordable situations in Waban. I know one of them rather closely (the kids spend time with us while the mother works). I don’t know about a half-way house, but affordable housing involving formerly homeless is not a problem in the least. This term “chronically homeless” is quite an issue for me and the arguments supporting housing that small segment of homelessness used class workfare as a weapon of choice. We can’t rule w our hearts only. We are not being cruel by picking and choosing settings.
Newton Highlands is an expensive community, and it has affordable housing. It works very well. People live in nice facilities where they can access shops, the T, houses of worship, restaurants, a bank, hang out in a park, go to the Hyde Center, and if necessary, get their hair done.
The corner of Beacon St. and Washington St. is busy, not amenable to pedestrians and is dominated by a hospital, nursing home and a highway. And this is in good weather.
This would be a very different story if this facility was in Waban Square. But even then, there is the major question of service access. And still, whether this proposal would serve the maximum good vs. all alternatives.
The harsh reality is that with limited funding and even fewer services available, if projects are not thoroughly vetted and well chosen, we ultimately end up helping less people. Or worse, failing.
The Mayor had reasonable questions about this proposal — questions that could not be adequately addressed many weeks ago. He was right to ask, and it would have been highly irresponsible to attempt to go forward on this until those questions were answered.
@Hoss, I’m hoping you can help me understand one of the terms being kicked around here. I’m only familiar with the federal HUD definition of chronic homelessness referring to individuals with a disabling condition who have been homeless for one year or more or a person with a disabling condition who has had at least four episodes of homelessness within three years. I’ve known people who satisfy this definition and have neither drug and alcohol nor mental health issues beyond the stress, anxiety and depression that accompany homelessness. Is there a different standard that I’m not aware of? It seems that there is an underlying assumption that all of these individuals will have both mental health and substance abuse issues and I’m wondering if that is substantiated somewhere?
@Lisap – HUD defines a disabling condition as “a diagnosable substance abuse disorder, a
serious mental illness, developmental disability, or chronic physical illness or disability, including the co-occurrence of two or more of these conditions.” In addition, “a disabling condition limits an individual’s ability to work or perform one or more activities of daily living.”
@Bill, you make an excellent point about the facilities that are readily available in Newton Highlands that do not seem to be as accessible in the Engine 6 location. Between Newton Housing, a group home (with another on the horizon) and potentially other situations that I am not aware of we seem to have a good environment to help folks live in the community. I think easy access to facilities and transportation is an important consideration to reduce the number of barriers that persons encounter as they are transitioning though adversity.
@Bill Brandel
There was a public meeting held by the supporters of Engine 6 on Monday in which the petitioners answered major questions about the proposal. They offered information that specifically address your concerns: Engine 6 is actually a more ideal location for this sort of housing than many other Pine Street projects (which all manage just fine despite the lack of amenities), those who will be moving into the housing are very used to having to use public transportation, etc.
Speaking generally, I don’t think that any formerly homeless person is going to turn down a home because their walk to the grocery store or the T will be long. I trust Pine Street to know how to deal with transportation issues and the like. After all, they have been doing so very successfully in far worse locations than Engine 6 for thirty years.
As for why this project should be here – if you have been keeping up with the TAB and Globe reporting on the issue, you will recall that the waiting list for this sort of housing is extremely long. In other words, housing cannot keep up with demand. This means that *any* space on the table that can feasibly accomodate the (qualified, vetted) formerly homeless should be put to that use – Newton or Boston. During I mentioned earlier, an MD who works with the homeless mentioned that the average lifespan of a homeless person is a little over fifty. Given that the average age of those in Pine Street Housing is about 52, giving these people homes is *literally* saving lives. That’s reason enough for me to put nine of these individuals here in Waban. I respect, however, that we all have differing moral standards.
Best –
NSS – H: There seems to be confusion. Is this Pine Street Inn’s money to determine where they want to locate a shelter? Or is it public funding, intended for best use in Newton? If the former, Pine Street Inn can do as it pleases. If the latter, then the question is about best use in Newton.
As you say, the list is long, which underscores the significance of getting it right.
Bill, you well know the answer to your question. This is public funding. But the questions of how this property can be used effectively have been answered intelligently by Pine Street – unfortunately they were not allowed to present in a public forum before the plug was pulled. I ask you, Bill – what is a better use for this property than what is being proposed? It doesn’t have sufficient parking for much else. It doesn’t make economic sense to put fewer units in. For these reasons, and the others enumerated by Pine Street, this is a perfect location for what is being proposed.
Can we just be HONEST – They Mayor and many in Newton do not want Homeless people living near them. End of Story. You can paint it with issues with transportation or whatever you want. But that is the truth.
Very sad day in Newton IMHO.
Maybe the Mayor should go along with Dori and Candance to an Understanding Our Difference Presentation.
NN: I would think that the Pine Street Inn people are open-minded about where they can locate people desperately in need of housing. That is their mission. But I don’t think that the question is: What do we do with Engine 6? Nor is it necessarily, what can Pine Street Inn do here? I think the bigger question is who can most be helped by what funding the City has at its disposal? What works?
It’s time for people to open their eyes to what is happening here in Newton: There are families here who are hungry, who can’t pay their bills, who can’t adequately clothe their kids, aging people becoming shut-in, and the list goes on.
It is unfortunate that this proposal was politicized in the way that it was. But maybe something good will still come of it. Like, perhaps, people waking up to the fact that we have people in need here and people who want to help.
Native Newtonian – Medical or professional offices. The building was deeded by the City with those purposes envisioned.
Hoss, there is not enough parking there to make it work. As someone who visited the Hospice offices on many an occasion, I can tell you that parking there for more then maybe 8 cars is simply not possible. And on street parking is restricted, as well. The people who worked at the hospice had to park behind each other and were constantly being called out of meetings to move their cars so co-workers could get their’s out.
I don’t understand why taking the T is being criticized. We want more people driving in Newton? Normal people can commute with the T to Boston, but not homeless?
Because there was no apparent attempt to provide some neighborly advice about our local amenities, here’s some constructive info:
All the shops (like cvs) in lower falls are less than a mile away. Its a 20 min walk or accessible by the green line shuttle, which runs from woodland station to framingham.
The Riverside development and its retail will be one t stop away, or a nice walk.
AA meetings are held in a beautiful dcr owned house at the end of charles st in Auburndale, a short walk from the Riverside T. Other than the occasional too-fast drivers, the AA people have been model citizens, maintaining the grounds in immaculate shape.
How can Newton’s Commissioner of Health and Human Services not know where Newton AA meetings are held?
She doesn’t want to know because her Boss the Mayor did not want this project to go forward and now they are figuring out how to spin the reason.
Again if the Mayor was just HONEST and would say – we dont want homeless in Waban it would be better. This spin is insulting to those of us who know better.
If these are the principal objections, the city has seriously undercut its argument against engine 6.
Joanne,
Your accusations are demeaning your case. There are a lot of reasons to be on both sides of this issue, but your accusing the mayor of not being honest (HONEST in large letters) is in itself DISHONEST.
You’re like a child throwing a tantrum. You aren’t getting your way and you are getting nasty.
Nathan – I completely agree with you. Plus, does the city not know that there are local food delivery services? Peapod and Roche brothers will deliver groceries for a cost of $6.95 to $9.95. Does the Commissioner of Public Health for the City of Newton not know that there are over 50 separate AA meetings within the City each week, and at least a half dozen NA meetings. Does the Commissioner really need Pine Street to tell her the location of local community based health services in the City of Newton? Instead of playing “gotcha” why isn’t the City offering up their own suggestions and alternative solutions? If these questions can be quickly and easily answered by members of the public then it does seem to suggest that these matters are either trifling objections or perhaps the City was never acting in good faith when it invited these people to propose this project. I don’t profess to be an expert in the subject matter, but I have drawn three distinct conclusions about this population of individuals: (a) these are disabled adults who (b) experienced ongoing homelessness and (c) whose lives would be greatly improved if the City authorized the use of federal tax dollars it has been granted to alleviate this concern. If this is how the city expresses it’s commitment then perhaps it should return our federal tax dollars so that they can be put to use elsewhere.
Lisap — With about $40/week to spend on food ($200 per mo.), I don’t think anyone’s going to spend a quarter of that on delivery. More likely they’ll go to the convenience store across from Papa Razzi. The project also put Whole Foods as a choice. Let’s call and see if they take SNAP.
Also, “return” suggests we have the funds
Hoss, that may well be. Or, the on-site manager could coordinate those grocery deliveries for residents so that they are sharing one delivery for a fraction of the cost. The point is that these are neither insurmountable nor significant issues. Indeed these seem pretty negligible to me. I’m reading through the developer’s proposal right now and I have to wonder whether the city even botheread d that residents would receive on-site services, including mental health services. As for the funds, I don’t think it really matters much whether they are sitting in our coffers or are simply earmarked for the City’s use, my point is still the same.
From reports of the recent meeting, the two candidates for housing that were in attendance were hardly ambulatory. The idea of crossing Rte. 95 and the Grove St. intersection would be no small task.
And the City is not in the business of “imaginary” services or facilities. It deals with reality, such as very limited bandwidth and funding that does not allow them to provide or coordinate services to affordable housing cites. Nor can it ensure that private businesses follow through on their commitments.
And instead of speculating on what the City might have done or not, why don’t you call and find out what actually happened? Do you know Candace or Dori? They are hardly what you would call hard-hearted, or less-than-thorough bureaucrats.
Bill, evidently the city is, however, in the business of inviting developers to come in and make proposals for development of low income housing, as it did in this case. Having done that, one assumes an obligation of dealing in good faith. Moreover, the city accepts significant obligations and duties when it accepts federal Community Block Development Grant funds, a program which is specifically designed to “ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities. . .” Unequivocally, these people are amoung the most vulnerable in our communities. If the city is going to accept these funds for a particular purpose then it has an obligation to follow through consistent with the purposes for which the funds were granted. As for contacting these individuals directly, it is extraordinarily unlikely that their answer is going to be anything different than their written statement. I don’t know what imaginary services you’re referring to. However, when the Commissioner of Public health makes a point of contention that the developer did not answer her question whether AA services are available and accessible by public transportation, a matter of public knowledge and an issue one would reasonably expect to be already within the ken of knowledge of our Commissioner, and uses that lack of an answer to justify denial of the project, it is fair to challenge whether the city ever intended to engage in this project in good faith.
I think even the opponents of Engine 6’s development can acknowledge that this has been a complete disaster by the mayor. I expected better when I voted for him. Am I still a supporter? I am. But on difficult issues I expect accountability and engagement. The city seemed mostly disorganized, counterproductive, and poorly run in regards to this issue.
And Hoss, to address your point regarding Waban residents being generous, I think it is not a contradiction to acknowledge the financially generous nature of Waban folks, but also to state that they are being NIMBYish with this proposal. I got emails from contacts in Waban on this proposal that were filled with untruths and intent on “protecting our neighborhood”. It is possible to have an open pocketbook but not an open community. I don’t doubt the former about Waban, and I think it is clear now about the latter. The hit to Waban’s reputation came from Waban’s residents. Not from the proponents of the proposal.
I just posted the following on the Newton TAB Blog as well:
Fig,
As you probably know, I was a big supporter of the Mayor 4 years ago. This current Mayor is not the same man he was 4 years ago. The Mayor I worked for to get elected was a guy who had his head on straight and would have been in front of and accountable for this mess. He changed the day after he won, I believe (but don’t know for sure) he started listening to different people. He started to believe his own hype. This is not the same man we all voted for 4 years ago. Not the same man.
I posted a rebuttal to what Ted says he just posted.
From Ted H-M
“The Fair Housing Act seeks “to provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States”; to “remove the walls of discrimination which enclose minority groups”; and to foster “truly integrated and balanced living patterns.” In other words, the Fair Housing Act requires HUD to proactively promote non-discrimination, residential integration, and equal access to the benefits of housing.”
The fact that such a law exists is simply a tribute to the fact that people who think this way have been able to pass the law. It doesn’t make the law correct or fair. Such is the case with many laws where political pressure groups are able to do this.
This is plain and simple social engineering, forcing people who may not want to live together for whatever their reasons to live together, forcing one part of society to give money to another part, and simply acting in a way that interferes with personal freedom. It executes an agenda believed in by some but not by all.
I am opposed to discrimination. I am not a fan of forced integration. Many years ago, I listened to a talk by Israeli physicians together, one Jewish and one Arab. They talked about working for the Israeli national health service. At the end, I asked them how long they foresaw before there would be more integration as the US was moving towards. Both of them didn’t understand why it should since each one liked his culture and preferred to live among his own people.
Not everyone desires to be completely mixed together.
And to Tom, I was not a supporter of the mayor, although I preferred him to his opponent. Today, while I don’t necessarily agree with everything he has done, he is by far our best choice.
fignewtonville — If the mayor looked bad, it wasn’t with voters.
Barry,
I believe it was John Adams who famously wrote that we are nation of laws and not of men, and since 1968 the Federal Fair Housing Act has been one of the laws of the land. If legislation could only be enacted with the universal consent of the governed, surely our legislative branch would achieve nothing because, as I am fond of saying, reasonable minds may differ. I’m confident that you could poll any person and find that each and every one of us can identify laws, agendas and policies with which we fervently disagree and that is one of our most cherished liberties – the right to disagree most vigorously with our government. But while we are free to disagree and advocate for change, we are not free to disregard. (Thank you for allowing me to wax philosophical.)
Ted’s point is a very serious one. As Lisap points out, we can disagree with laws and work toward change but, while the laws are the laws, well – they are the laws. The Mayor’s actions / nonactions / arrogance has put us in jeopardy of noncompliance. It is true that he has shown blatant disregard for the Fair Housing Act, the judgement of the Housing Partnership, the judgement of the Planning & Development Board, and the counsel of the Fair Housing Committee, on which I serve.
Like Tom Sheff, I voted for and have supported Setti in many ways for 4 years; like Tom, I wonder where Setti Warren has gone.
Lisap,
I can’t disagree with what you say.
However, many here are becoming obnoxiously offensive regarding people who may not want this law executed in a certain way in their own backyard. Just because a prison must exist in society, or a petroleum refinery, doesn’t mean you want them next door. I hope the law doesn’t go so far as to mandate that every square inch of the US have an equal representation of every ethnic, religious, and racial group so as to ‘foster “truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”’
As I said, I don’t believe in discrimination, but I do believe in freedom of association. People like Ted, and perhaps you, though I hope not, have their vision of what should and should not exist in the structure of all societies (as do I) and see no problem in forcing that upon everyone, everywhere.
I admit that I must live under the laws of the land, but how these laws are implemented exactly may be the subject of discussion. Referring to Waban residents who may not want the Engine 6 project in their neighborhood as “haters” is simply ignorant. And, we always have the ability to work to change laws that are wrong, and do not have to accept them. In this regard, many of those who support this kind of legislation, and use arguments like yours and Ted’s, saw no problem in using illegal drugs, even while they act to make them legal, or to have illegal abortions, while acting to make them legal, or to do many other things whose laws they opposed.
Ted Hess-Mahan — Although I’m really confused about Barry Cohen’s point (it sure seems discriminatory although he says it is not…), lets say someone says that Waban is a “filthy rich” community and all those rich people make up the majority, is your point that the Fair Housing Act requires us to insert very poor individuals?
By the way, let me comment on a point I made
I hope the law doesn’t go so far as to mandate that every square inch of the US have an equal representation of every ethnic, religious, and racial group so as to ‘foster “truly integrated and balanced living patterns.”’
The interesting thing about having such a process is that, by uniformly mixing everyone together by law, it works to eliminate those ethnic, religious and racial groupings that existed before. So, in the end there will presumably be a sort of melting-pot American culture, which some people want. It’s just disingenuous not to admit that that is the objective. The people who want this either don’t like their own cultures so much, don’t have one because their parents already gave up theirs, or think that in the end everyone will become their mainstream culture. Many people today criticize some immigrant cultures, like many Hispanics, because they don’t drop their own backgrounds and become “American”, by speaking their native languages, eating their native foods, and living in their own neighborhoods. If this is really what it’s about, then what we need to be discussing is whether or not that is what we want, not whether or not a certain law is implemented.
Even Jimmy Carter got himself in trouble when he extolled the richness of different cultures living in the US and retaining their cultures.
Hoss, the Fair Housing Act was a response to redlining and discrimination that led to widespread segregation in housing. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status or handicap. The Fair Housing Act also imposes a duty to “affirmatively further fair housing,” requiring HUD and its grantees to do something “more than simply refrain from discriminating . . . or from purposely aiding discrimination by others.” Instead, “[a]ction must be taken to fulfill, as much as possible, the goal of open, integrated residential housing patterns and to prevent the increase of segregation[.]”
I hope that answers your question.
Barry,
I like to think myself a libertarian with some liberal leanings. Correct me if I misstate you, but I think that you and I agree that it is not the role of government to ensure each person’s individual happiness, but to facilitate in a limited way each individual’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I do believe that there are some individuals who are so severely impaired that it is appropriate for society to make provisions for their support. I do not subscribe to a utopian, Robinhood view that prioritizes redistribution of wealth. You have called into question the policy rationale which set this entire project into motion, and I think it is entirely fair to do so. I’m looking at the issue from a more narrow perspective: having adopted a goal of increasing low income housing consistent with a written plan, has the city acted consistent with its stated goals and its duties as a recipient of federal HUD funding, and treated the developer with fairness and consistent with its established procedures? As to the narrow issue of the process, I find the city’s rationale for halting the project unpersuasive. As to the greater issue, I have a lot of appreciation for the concerns of the Waban neighborhood. Before moving to Newton I lived at the mid-point between the Cathedral Housing project and Camden-Lenox, and Pine Street Inn was very close. I had many experiences in that area which I would prefer never to have to experience again in my lifetime. Enuf said.
Lisap,
Good post. No arguments. Did I just say that? 🙂
Ted Hess-Mahan –Are you saying the project would deliver diversity with race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or handicap to Waban? Is there a profile in Waban that this project will change than economic status?
Maybe I should just say it — when the sponsors promise to bring in residents that fit, how do we know that the sponsor will not be generalizing about Waban and themselves stereotyping and being discriminatory? It’s one thing to have concerns about whether this project offers anything to the residents or Waban that otherwise would be served at other locations, it’s quite another to use anti-discrimination laws as if Waban is a community that discriminates.
Ted: Are you accusing the City of discrimination? On what merits?
HUD has stepped up enforcement and promulgated tougher regulations to require communities which receive federal funds for housing, like Newton, to fulfill their duty to affirmatively further fair housing. Recently, a federal court upheld HUD’s decision to reallocate $7.4 million that were slated to go to Westchester County in New York for failing to fulfill the terms of a fair housing settlement.
Ted: You didn’t answer my question. Are you accusing Newton of discrimination?
Bill, as long as you’re asking the question, why not make it more specific:
Ted, are you accusing the Warren administration of discrimination?
All Ted can do is spout the law. The reason is that this law happens to fit his outlook on life, and was enacted by people with his outlook on life. We’re questioning how the law is being applied, with respect to the people who are affected. He doesn’t care, which is a continuation of why I don’t want him for mayor. I want someone who first and foremost cares about the people who elect him.
Discrimination Ted?
The Mayor is not required to approve every affordable housing project that comes down the pike and his discretion is necessary to determine when a project doesn’t work (for any reason).
This isn’t discrimination. It’s responsible, disciplined leadership.
It’s hard not to see this as pure politics. Affordable housing as political football. Nice Ted.
I’m not by nature a cynical guy. The way this project has played out has left me feeling pretty cynical though – not because the proposal was rejected but because of the whole way it was handled from start to finish.
Under the best of circumstances this sort of project is always difficult. It’s full of conflicting issues and concerns, all (or most) are reasonable. There’s nearly a universal human desire (yes, in Waban) to lend a hand to people in need but not at the expense of your own family or neighbors. There’s no reason those two have to be in conflict. In a misguided project those two concerns can definitely be at odds. In a well thought out project, those two can be perfectly in sync – people get a helping hand and the neighborhood benefits as well.
Whether the Engine 6 proposal was ultimately accepted or rejected, and whether it was misguided or a model project, I would have hoped that hashing this out in public over the last few months would have been constructive. I would have hoped that by this point, the people against the project would have learned enough and seen enough to know their initial worst fears may have been a bit overblown. I would have hoped that the people who were for the project would by now realize that those were perfectly reasonable concerns to be worried about by perfectly reasonable people. I would have hoped that the proponents would have had an opportunity to address all the concerns that were raised in a public forum. Maybe they would have succeeded, maybe not, but in any case we’d all end up better off at the end of it.
Whether the project was ultimately approved or not approved I would have hoped that that public hashing out would put the city and its citizens in better shape for the next time a similar project comes up for review.
Instead, I’m afraid the opposite happened and it didn’t have to be that way.
… and the letter released this week by the Planning Dept and the Health & Human Services Dept to end the process was frankly an embarrassment.
Thank You Jerry. Very well said and you are correct this letter is an embarrassment.
LisaP said:
“I’m looking at the issue from a more narrow perspective: having adopted a goal of increasing low income housing consistent with a written plan, has the city acted consistent with its stated goals and its duties as a recipient of federal HUD funding, and treated the developer with fairness and consistent with its established procedures?”
Exactly. That is the issue in a nutshell. Terry, Bill and Gail would you like to comment on this.
This situation reminds me of when Mayor Cohen would set up committee after committeee and not listen to them. The Mayor put together a plan. This project fits the parameters of the plan, why is this project being put on hold, why is it being ignored? I think we all know it’s politics, it’s votes. On November 6th things will go back to where they were.
Mayor Warren touts how good he is at bringing people together. I think this would have been the perfect situation for him to do so. Instead of allowing people to have their say and speak their mind, he cut people off at the knees (stopped the process). Where is that leadership?
You guys are all over Ted. Let’s hear from the Mayor (not an email sent to Greg or his right hand man, Aaron) Let’s really hear from our leader who espouses transparency, integrity, etc. Where’s the Mayor???? You guys let him off the hook on everything. He’s not God and I want to hear from my Mayor. (oh yah, not in a press release, either).
Gail: Always the editor…
Ted: Either say that you are accusing the Warren administration of discrimination, or not.
The first (to my knowledge) post-preliminary interview with Mayoral Candidate Ted Hess-Mahan is now showing on NewTV or on demand at https://www.facebook.com/newtonnewsmakers.
Affordable housing, City Hall staff turnover issues, and trust and time commitment are a few of the topics covered. The candidate’s statements are some of the most specific and pointed statements he has made to date including drawing a direct link to what he calls the mayor’s
“inattentiveness” to additional infrastructure costs to the city.
Mayor Warren declined the invitation to participate in the forum.
Tom Sheff – agreed! Excellent post.
Hoss is right, this is a typical dreamy suburban project. These folks are not going spend their days bicycling to whole foods and feasting on organic vegetables and quinoa.
While I greatly support the development of more affordable housing in newton, (let people build more 2 family homes and triple deckers, encourage rentable mother in law units, and buildings with smaller affordable units and ample parking), a small unit of rehabilitative housing for the chronically homeless that is isolated away from social services isn’t useful. Not to the city, and not to the residents.
If this was going to be section 8 housing for stabilized individuals, I think it would be ok.
Charlie,
Very nice show.
The more I watch Ted campaign, the more I feel he’s the one.
Tom, don’t fall in love with political figures. I’d hate to see you get your hopes up for nothing just like with Setti.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/newton/2013/09/settie_warren_assailed_on_senate_run_at_mayoral_debate.html
Classic THM! Lot of empty words, not enough courage.
I can count so many instances where he pumped his chest against a bill, on these blogs, and then fell in line to vote for them.
The public letter from the city clearly states that the developer failed to provide answers. Is this discrimination or utter callousness/incompetence from this developer?
Speaking about courage, Setti actually showed some here. It would have been much beneficial to isolate Waban, and raise more election funds from supporters, and neutralize THM’s only issue. But he did the right thing…. by hitting the pause button.
To the extent I was not clear, I will repeat that the City has a duty to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH) under the Fair Housing Act and that denial of funds for Engine 6 raises a question about the City’s compliance with the Act’s requirement to fulfill that duty. As I made clear above, the Fair Housing Act both prohibits discrimination and also imposes a duty of AFFH. HUD has strengthened its regulations and enforcement of the AFFH duty, and communities may be subject to sanctions up to and including loss of CDBG funds for failing to fulfill that duty, as the Westchester County case attests. The denial of federal funds earmarked for affordable housing to the Engine 6 proposal, which included people with disabilities, raises a question about compliance with the AFFH duty under the Fair Housing Act.
The Fair Housing Committee (FHC), whose mission is “promote and support the City of Newton’s efforts to be a diverse and welcoming community with housing choices and opportunities free from housing discrimination,” has brought this to the attention of the Mayor in a letter. Here is what the letter from the chair of the FHC, dated July 16, 2013, says (emphasis is mine):
To date, the Mayor has not responded.
I want to be clear on another point: the FHC prepared the letter advising the Mayor of the City’s duties to affirmatively further fair housing, to support the last two analyses of impediments to fair housing, and to fulfill the City’s consolidated plan for the use of federal funds for affordable housing, without my participation. Indeed, I purposefully excluded myself from those discussions, precisely because I did not want the letter to be perceived as political. Members of the FHC include attorneys with many years experience in Fair Housing Act legal issues who are recognized as leaders in their field. Nevertheless, while I did not take in preparing the letter, I wholeheartedly agree with what is stated in it.
The Mayor, for whatever reason, has chosen not to respond to the FHC’s letter. This is a serious issue and I, for one, would like to know why. I believe the people of Newton should too.
Ted thinks he has opened a wound by harping on the one issue of Setti’s actions regarding affordable housing. So, he keeps attacking that wound and pouring salt in it. But it’s a loser. To support his case, he keeps citing those laws, but there’s nothing in the law that mandates that a specific project be done. Projects have their pros and cons and it’s important to evaluate them and not call people “haters” or imply that because of one project Newton isn’t living up to its legal responsibilities.
You know, there are certain cities that have declared themselves “sanctuary cities”, which are welcoming to illegal immigrants. Ted probably agrees with this violation of the law, although I don’t really know. These cities, and I believe Cambridge is one, feel they reflect the attitudes of the people there, and will openly skirt the law in the interests of their constituents.
Ted on the other hand, is acting against the interests of Newton’s voters by not helping them and rather forcing upon them projects that they may not want. He should be looking for ways to obey the law, which I do agree with, but that work in concert with the citizens of Newton.
In recent past years with Newton, expanding Affordable Housing needed to be on an opportunistic basis where a developer has a plan and presents it to City Hall, as opposed to City Hall going out and creating affordable units. Since Setti Warren has generated long term capital plans which never previously existed, and got voter approval on large parts of the plan, we now have new opportunities under Newton control. As new schools, etc., are built, old ones will present options for housing. It makes no sense to get stuck on this rejected plan of 9 beds like a broken record, replaying over and over those short days from proposed plan to rejection. It makes no sense for EVERY fraction of the affordable housing supporters to be badmouthing Setti Warren like he’s their Dad that rejected buying the sporty roadster, reserving the opportunity to buy something more practical, and they are now up in their room facebooking comments about parental abuse. It does make sense to more forward, mend bridges and collaborate. Will this happen before the first Tues in November? It’s up to one Newton resident
Newton Dad said, “The public letter from the city clearly states that the developer failed to provide answers. Is this discrimination or utter callousness/incompetence from this developer?”
Misinformation and half truths are rampant. Had the developer been allowed to state their case, and had the public been able to hear the presentation that the proponents heard on Monday night, questions would have been answered, half truths dispelled. To call this developer and the Pine Street Inn incompetent (given all of the units they successfully manage) or callous reflects the ignorance of this project that the Mayor has (for whatever reason?) promoted.
“May I remind you that you are under oath…”
So, Ted you are not accusing the City of discrimination. Rather, you are simply using the lawyerly device of raising the issue in everyone’s minds by reminding people of the law that requires that City affirms. As if they did not already know that.
And the Mayor has not responded. Nor should he.
Let’s not forget that it was Setti’s administration that invited this bid, so there was an openness to a project of this type. But as Barry [and perhaps others have said], that doesn’t mean a specific project is automatically a sound one. Setti ultimately concluded in late June that this project as presented was not ready for prime time[ having sat in on the late June public meeting, I came to the same conclusion.]
My view is that Ted is more likely to see all/most affordable housing projects as viable, which is his right. My strong preference is for such projects to be scrutinized case by case, on multiple dimensions, and I’m convinced Setti did just that and found this one wanting. The developers didn’t do their homework thoroughly enough, and there was a consequence.
The objections in the letter are based on mobility, and thus discriminate against the mobility disabled. So yes, this document reveals discrimination.
By the way, AA meets at Newton Wellesley Hospital, which took me 30 sec to find out. So we can remove that bullet point from the letter.
Nathan, the issues raised in the letter have to do with the property developer and managers’ failure to provide a reasonable plan for accessible services for residents who may be mobility impaired (and who will certainly lack personal transportation.)
Bill, of course the mayor should have responded to the valid concerns of the Fair Housing Committee. Why does he appoint experts to these committees then disregard their counsel?
Dan, I am curious as to which public meeting you attended in June where you felt that the developers were not prepared? Was that in front of the Planning & Development Board, or the meeting with neighbors?
I was curious about the door-to-door distance from the proposed site to the Woodland T stop. According to Geodistance, door to door it is 0.443 miles for those not mobility impaired. I did review the plan submitted by the developer and it does plan for 3 totally accessible units for residents with mobility issues. As has been mentioned previously, The Ride offers door to door transportation services and eligibility is based upon the individual’s functional ability to use fixed route transportation services. This is an important distinction because it does not fix eligibility solely to individuals with mobility issues. Instead, they evaluate “functional transit skills” in determining eligibility.
Source here: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/Riding_the_T/Accessible_Services/The_Ride/In%20Person%20Eligibility%20Presentation%2011-09-12.pdf
This is bizarre. How ever many weeks into this thing, the sponsors of this project have failed to adequately address the most basic questions regarding this population’s needs. These issue, btw, were the very issues that prompted the Mayor to put this process on hold back when.
Why would these barely ambulatory folks take the T to the Star Market in Chestnut Hill? Waban Market is one very short stop away. Why would they ignore any potential services available across the street at Newton-Wellesley? And instead of answering these questions, why, pray tell, is Ted going around waving this “you better affirm” letter?
This does not compute.
So Bill, you’re satisfied with the city’s letter?
The City asked the questions and presented the answers. Based on those answers (some, how ever many weeks later, still outstanding), they made their call.
Are you satisfied with the sponsor’s answers? Do you think the sponsors should have been able to answer these questions from the start? Now?
Dan,
I was at that Waban meeting, too. I came out with the same viewpoint as you. But, I also went to the meeting monday night and I have changed my mind. These people aren’t deviants or sex offenders, they are people down on their luck. These people can be you or me. They held a job, they were doing all the right things and tragedy hit and now they need help.
Some of you may think that it shouldn’t be up to Newton to give them help, you’re entitled to your opinion. The fact is the Mayor had an affordable housing plan for people under this category, went out of his way to bring the project into Newton and due to a loud vocal minority he buckled. On top of buckling, he didn’t allow an important open meeting to occur.
After buckling, he should have gotten up and been a leader by bringing both sides together and mend the community. Instead, he’s avoiding the issue by hiding in his office. And all the apologists will allow him to do so…kudos. What good is having the ability of bringing people together if you never use it???
Regardless of what side you’re on, the Mayor’s base should be ashamed of themselves for not getting the Mayor out and mending the city….ashamed. Just my thoughts.
Bill, Where did you get the idea that all of the residents are going to be “barely ambulatory folks”? Three of nine units are planned to be fully accessible. That doesn’t compel the conclusion that occupants of the other six will be “barely ambulatory”. There are many, many people with documented disabilities who are completely ambulatory and who rely upon daily public transportation. Would you consider a person with a vision impairment to be “barely ambulatory”? The city’s position is that this development is isolated when in fact it is practically next door to a major stop on the green line, and individuals without the functional ability to get to the T would have access via The Ride. For a city that touts its great public transportation opportunities, this doesn’t make sense to me.
@Joseph – I agree with you completely.
Re: mobility/accessibility. As someone who has mobility/stamina issues but would not qualify for The Ride, I would find the .4 mile distance to the nearest T stop a major impediment to shopping and accessing services. While that sounds like a short distance to any healthy person, it is a long walk for someone with chronic health problems to do especially when laden with bags of groceries or after a long day, or when there’s snow on the ground, or on a day they aren’t feeling great. And for someone who has been chronically homeless, the cost of The Ride is not negligible.
Sorry for the double post, but I’m taking this information directly from the materials provided in the “Resident’s Guide” prepared by the Pine Street Inn and submitted to the city months ago:
“All residents must be capable of living independently but with access to support services from program staff.”
Page 7 of the guide lists extensive services that would be available to residents within the City of Newton for: hospitals/health care (specifically identifying Newton-Wellesley Hospital); Life Skills, Mental Health Services, Employment, Elder Services, Food Pantries and Transportation. The only category where Pine Street did not identify services within the City of Newton was on the topic of Alcohol and Drug Abuse services, an area of service we all know is available within the city including next to it at Newton-Wellesley Hospital.
These aren’t the answers the City says the developer provided; this is just a portion of the information they did provide.
To the ‘Setti-stock’ Nation… where is the growth in affordable housing in Newton? Spending less than half The fear exists in too many Newton neighborhoods that available spaces for new construction will result in 40B housing, and it is irresponsible to not genuinely pursue utilizing the federal funds this city receives towards the purpose it is intended. Didn’t someone in Newton’s Planning Department leave her position voluntarily over this?
I think the questions asked were disingenuous and trivial. Are these really the core issues the city is concerned about? The letter is an embarrassment and an insult.
Bill, I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the Pine Street Inn had answers to all of these questions (and probably communicated said answers to the city). Most of us can answer the AA meeting question by doing a google search. This letter reads as a list of excuses for not allowing the project, but considering the level of detail in the proposal and the various zoning and permitting back and forth, this “missing” information is not a reason to kill a project unless you WANT to kill the project. I think this particular letter is actually made the situation worse.
And Hoss, I think you are wrong on the voters judging Setti on this issue. The fact of the matter is, whether you agree with this project or not, this whole process was handled in an unprofessional manner. You and other may approve of the result, and I may disagree with you on that, but I’m hoping we can all agree that ignoring the result of the mayor’s decision, his team dropped the ball as a whole. Such failure is bad for our community and sets neighbor against neighbor. Sometimes a good process can solve such disputes and at least make all involved feel like they had a chance to have their say.
And Bill, I realize you are a huge supporter of the mayor, but I’d be interested in what you feel he could have done better here. How can we not make similar mistakes in the future?
This topic is discussed in some detail by Ted Hess-Mahan on the just-released edition of Newton Newsmakers. Can be seen online at https://www.facebook.com/newtonnewsmakers or visit NewTV.org for times and channels.
While the Mayor’s decision on Engine 6 is ripe for debatable, there is wide consensus that the process was severely mishandled.
The right way to handle this would have been for the Mayor himself (not via subordinates) to have simply stated his conviction that it was the wrong project in the wrong place. He’s done good work and he certainly has proven himself to have good leadership qualities. Even those who disagree on the project would have had respect for such a direct statement.
@mgwa.
For some reason city planners in newton like to avoid the issue of mobility. They assume that everyone either has a car (and can find parking!) or else has a bicycle. What happens to old people who can’t bike, the disabled or very poor who can’t bike or drive, or everyone in the wintertime is not their concern. They belong to the “What Me Worry?” school of urban planning.
People are just not going hand carry a weeks worth of groceries, nor spend 1+hr every day walking for groceries, and certainly not in the wintertime. Unless newton develops some serious park-n-ride facilites, (which is strongly opposed by Sean Roche on the Mayor’s traffic advisory board) the potential of public transportation is limited to those in easy walking distance of the MBTA.
Due to the mobility issue alone, the Engine 6 site is not suitable as place for the chronically homeless. It would ok as Section 8 housing, or some other kind of transitional housing for a more mobile population.
Setti Warren likes to hide out in his office. He hasn’t taken any responsibility for the recent screw ups at DPW/TAB either.
I agree the process was severly mishandled, but not by the mayor. IT was mishandled by the developers and Ald Crossley (who was aware of this development well before the 1st public meeting).
Setti was given 4 weeks (or so) to be the final stop, after which the project was virtually going to happen.
One of the city commissions (dont remember the name) approved it. One of the members was at the Waban meeting and was asked if any of the questions the citizens had were even in the debate. The commission essentially rubberstamped the proposal thinking it was a typical homeless development.
Setti had to do him job and listen to the constituents. He had the courage to think before he threw citizens money away.
Newton BTW has a good record on affordable housing, as well as other compassionate causes. Just because we are not at an arbitrarily determined 10% number, doesnt mean we do a poor job (yes we could do better). We have a higher affordable housing rate than majority of our neighboring towns. Lets put things in perspective.
Fig: I do support the Mayor, and if I had any criticism of this project, I would share it with him in person. That, btw, is what I would expect of anyone who serves as an alderman in this City.
But I would say this and I do mean it: This thing got off to a bad start and needed to be pulled. I think that the Mayor has handled a situation that was Benghazi’d pounced on as a political opportunity. Finally, I am confident that the Mayor has already started working to improve the process for how these things get done.
I know this much about the man: He truly believes in affordable housing and helping those in need. He believes in achieving consensus. It goes to the core of his being. To say otherwise is to selectively ignore much.
Bill,
Over the last 4 years (really 5) I have heard what a great leader Setti is and how he was going to bring the city together, but I have yet to see it occur. After a semi-divisive override he had the opportunity to bring the city together and did nothing to bring the pro-override people and the anti-override people together. As far as I am concerned his leadership is a myth, unless you believe that hiding in your office is leadership. Now, the city needs him to bring people together and once again he’s invisible. He’s terrific at mending fences when it comes to his run for the Senate, when he gets a personal benefit out of it, like re-election, but how about doing it for the community.
This project followed a process that he himself outlined, that other projects used to get funding, etc. This is my last comment on this, but it’s all bogus.