A local attorney has asked the aldermen in Land Use to consider whether Newton should continue to urbanize with additional high-rise apartment/condo buildings.
Peter Harrington’s memo touches on the perennial debate on whether Newton is a suburb or a city (in the sense of dense, compact) and whether the Zoning Code (now up for reform) is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. His opinion is clearly that the ordinances don’t support the Plan, and should rule here.
Once again we are faced with new decisions to urbanize our city with the addition of intense development of residential housing. The proposition that the taxes generated by the new development will cover the increase (sic) costs is not provable, based upon our historical experience.
He also implies that Land Use has not been operating as it should. He compares it to a court room, and asks that all communications be held in public hearing. Any that are not, he says, are improper:
Compare the problem to that of a Judge meeting one of the parties or a witness in a case that is before that particular Judge outside of the courtroom. The meeting is prohibited and the case would be declared a mistrial.
While I agree with Mr Harrington’s uneasiness about developer’s access to impress their charm on members of the BoA, the courtroom analogy would not allow constituents that oppose any project to communicate directly either. He needs to rethink that one.
Having read Mr. Harrington’s letter, its context is lost on me. It appears he’s making a general argument against large apartment buildings and condos. If that’s the case, I certainly agree, Newton needs to proceed with the utmost caution.
Far more alarming than simple philosophical opposition, is the reality of what we’re facing on Wells Ave, where plans are apparently in the works for not one, but two 40B projects. What’s most bothersome, is that it appears the Warren Administration may have already had some dialogue with Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, who would like to build a massive apartment building on the site currently occupied by Boston Sports Club. That project alone, has the potential to add an enormous amount of public school students to elementary schools on the south side of the city.
The possibility of two 40B projects on Wells Ave is not only a test of the Mayor’s commitment to preserving the quality of education in those local schools, but it’s also the first opportunity for Newton to take measure of new Land Use chair, Marc Laredo. Those two public officials, Warren and Laredo, must be held accountable for what transpires on Wells Ave.
While I can’t speculate what those two gentlemen will do, I have no qualms about stating what I would do if I were in Mayor Warren’s position. I would make it crystal clear to the developers of both projects that any hope of seeing their developments come to fruition, is wholly contingent on full mitigation of the impact of those projects on local schools. Specifically, I would demand of them in exchange for a “friendly” 40B process, that they provide Newton Public Schools with a zero cost 10-15 year lease for a new STEM “magnet” school. The developers either put that on the table, or Warren and Laredo should tell them to take a hike.
Since I’m not part of the inner workings of Newton but enjoy it’s particularities, I suggest anyone trying to influence schmucks in seats address them as any resident would as “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Land Use Committee”. This “Memorandum”, letter, as it is is unreadable as an influence on anything.
I can forsee an unspoken issue popping up, too. Right now, Wells Ave. is semi-isolated, but as the Crow flies, it’s terribly close to Oak Hill Park. I can forsee the developers making a pitch to link the two via a connecter roadway, and suddenly Oak Hill becomes heavily trafficked. The residents of Oak Hill will not like that scenario.
Although Newton is an incorporated city, I was under the impression that it incorporated as a city to forestall potential annexation by Boston when Boston was gobbling up smaller cities and towns and tried to annex Brookline.
Furthermore, with regards to urbanizing Newton, I was under the impression that Ward 2 elected Emily Norton because they didn’t want to see Newtonville urbanized under Eve Tapper’s grand vision.
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/10/video-heres-the-debate-between-norton-and-tapper/#axzz2rT2TOAdA
Mike, unfortunately, Mayor Warren is an enthusiastic promoter of selling Newton taxpayers on 40B housing projects.
Should Newton urbanize? – suppose we answer “No.” Then the next question is “How do we stop Newton from urbanizing?”
With 40B we really have very few tools. As long as land in Newton is valuable enough because of the schools, proximity to downtown, etc. that a developer can make his margin while including the affordable units, that’s what developers will do and the town has no recourse.
A “friendly” 40B means that Newton will continue to urbanize, but that in return for making a project more profitable the town has some influence over what’s built. Also, as we see with the Riverside neighbors lawsuit, since the developer hasn’t been exempted from zoning the project can be stalled/put at risk by outside factors.
I fear – if the goal is to avoid urbanization – that this is counterproductive. I’d guess that if even a quarter of these projects get delayed enough to hurt the bottom line/fall through then no developer will trust that a friendly 40B CAN be executed in Newton and stop asking.
Personally, I would prefer targeted urbanization around (some) village centers. If you can walk to transportation (Green line or commuter rail esp. with future use of DMUs, and a bus or two) and a supermarket that’s a good spot. I’d think that a 3-5 story building with spacious studio and 1-bedroom apartments or condos – and I’m talking 1,000+ SF for a 1 bedroom – and limited parking (1 or less spaces/unit) could bring in younger, minimal-driving child-free people to Newton. Or make space for older people who are looking to downsize.
Should you think such people are unicorns – for the first five years our marriage this was me and my husband – we had a lovely place about 3/4 of a mile out of Coolidge Corner in brookline, and did 90+ percent of our spending (and dates) within walking distance of home. Then we had a kid, rented a two bedroom, and started looking to buy in a place with excellent schools.
It seems to me that whenever new condo’s are proposed someone calls for a community center on the spot instead. (Given that it takes 2 full-time workers in good jobs to afford to live here, I wonder who they expect to go). Newton used to be denser; larger families and stay-at-home wive s shopping locally were the norm 60 years ago – and thus could support so many village cores. I believe targeted development could do that.
But if the no development-ever crowd wants to shut down even “friendly” 40Bs, I fear that there could never be the kind of coordination required re: zoning and special permits for what I’ve described, and we will be urbanized haphazardly by developers using 40B
(of course this could be prevented by a) repealing 40B or b) wrecking the schools, parks, trash and all-other municipal services until Newton is so undesirable to live in it’s not profitable to do any development…)
” younger, minimal-driving child-free people to Newton”, Which is exactly why we keep having issues with affordable housing. It takes two incomes for most non-trust fund working folks to live in Newton, so housing developments need to support that.
If Newton made an honest effort to create and enable practical housing for working people at all different income levels, we would not have the issue of 40B developers mixing in high dollar and “affordable” apartments.
And if someone really cares about the Newton Schools, increasing the number of voters who have no stake in the success of the Newton Schools is not the way to do it. If you have a condo that is only suitable for “Younger, minimal-driving child-free people”, then those people won’t give a crap about the newton schools since their property values aren’t tied to the success of the Newton school system (after all the replacement buyer when they sell to will also be “Younger, minimal-driving and child-free”).
I believe the term for Younger Professionals is DINKs : Double Income, No Kids !!