I’m not sure when this meeting was first announced, but I’ve just noticed this now..
Mayor Warren will be hosting an important event on Thursday, November 21, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. in the Newton North High School Cafeteria regarding the use of federal funds for community development in preparation for a new Five-Year Consolidated Plan. The Plan assesses community development and housing needs for Newton residents with low to moderate incomes and identifies goals and strategies to meet those needs. The event will be an opportunity for attendees to hear more about the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development federal programs in which the City participates, discuss ways to foster successful outcomes for individuals and families through the use of available funds, and learn how they can be involved in the development of this community-wide plan. This evening is the first of many upcoming events that will address accessible public places, affordable housing, human services, neighborhood improvements, and economic development.
Is this part of the conversation Mayor Warren promised when he announced that he would not support Engine 6?
Any report on how this meeting went?
If Newton wants to demonstrate its commitment to affordable housing, maybe it should repeal the $23M/year in override property tax increases it pushed since the beginning of 2002.
The first part of the evening was an overview presentation of the current Consolidated 5 year plan that we are in the fifth year of experiencing, with an eye to developing the next 5 year plan for the City. (The Feds require that such a plan be constructed, followed and assessed annually in order for the City to receive funds from them.) It seemed to me that there was a component of the developing plan presented that was not there before (someone please tell me if I got this wrong) that speaks to sustainability, enriching Village Centers with more housing and walk-to businesses and recreation choices, with hopes of lowering carbon emissions and easing access to seniors wishing to retain residency in the City.
The second part of the evening was focus-group discussions of what participants considered the most pressing needs of Newton’s low to moderate income population and what creative resources we could suggest to meet the needs identified. Suggestions were varied and ranged from re-zoning to accessory apartment encouragement, to village center enrichment via housing, to sharing senior services with other communities (e.g., payment to Needham for use of their new Senior Center by Newton residents), to surveying the served population to have them articulate their needs/wants themselves.
The meeting was attended by 50 or so community participants, in addition to the Mayor, about 10 City staffers, several Aldermen and several members of various Newton housing committees.
Candace Havens, Director of Planning and Development for Newton, indicated that the suggestions arising from the focus groups would be considered in the plan that now would go into its data collection phase of development.
Not exactly well advertised, was it?
But better than a 7 pt font under legal notices in the Tab! Want to learn more about this plan? (You should…) Call City Hall’s Planning Dept to get on the e-mail list of interested citizens. The plan is still in its con eptual stage…you may have a voice in its final form.
whoops…”conceptual”…where did that “c” go?
Greg, there was a brief announcement that a meeting would be scheduled in the online version of the Newton TAB that came out a few hours after the city was emailed a copy of this complaint that was filed with HUD asserting that the city had violated the Fair Housing Act when funding was denied for Engine 6. The aldermen did not receive email invitations to the meeting until November 14th.
If the city wants to attract low/moderate income residents, then we need to have a housing stock that meets the needs of such people. We need to decide.
1. Do we want to have working/non-working LMI residents? If we want working LMI residents, then we need to make any housing commuter friendly. If we want to house the chronically homeless or other social services clients, then we need very close access to social services, and MBTA. If students, then the housing needs to be close to the universities.
2. Long term, it would be a good idea to encourage the building of small scale multi-family units via mother in law appartments, double/triple deckers etc. More housing options means more competition and ultimately lower prices for renters and higher property values for everyone else.
3. We need to consider easing the building/lot size ratio requirements for people building multifamily units. The existing limits are there to prevent McMansions, but they make less sense for people who are living in multi-family homes and don’t want the obligation of maintaining gardens.
4. Do not waive parking/unit ratios unless we specifically want to house non-commuting LMI residents or create persistent problems with on-street parking and spillover. These requirements exist for a reason, which includes preventing tenements and ultra-high density housing.