Kathleen Kouril Grieser sent a rather lengthy email to opponents of the Austin Street project today via the Newtonville Trust list serve covering a variety a number of topics, including a resolution by Alderman Emily Norton that’s before the Board of Aldermen this evening. Here’s an excerpt…
The important thing TODAY is if you would consider sending a quick email to [email protected] asking him to send your message today to the entire Board of Aldermen: Ask the members of the BOA to vote TONIGHT, at the meeting of the full board, in support of Emily Norton’s resolution #47-14(3) calling on the mayor to limit the size and scale of the final project to three stories or less, 40 housing units or less, with sufficient parking for current and future uses…
….While Emily’s resolution describes a scenario that is not what we want, it is also a political device: If Emily’s resolution gets 9 or more votes that will indicate to the Mayor that he probably won’t get the 16 votes he’ll need down the road to get a special permit for a large (4-stories/80 unit) Austin St. development. (24-9=15). That’s why tonight’s vote matters. (PLEASE don’t say this in your emails, by the way.)
If Emily’s resolution fails to get at least 9 votes tonight our next step will be to push for a lease rather than a sale of the land. That would preserve ownership of the underlying land for the future, and make the present development plan less profitable/attractive to Bob Engler’s winning developer group. Leasing, rather than selling, the land was an option the City articulated in writing when “surplusing” the lot. Let’s hold them to it.
Later in the same email, Kouril Grieser urged recipients not to forward it to anyone, noting that one of her prior emails was forwarded to ” the Mayor and aldermen.” Kouril Grieser has this to say about the person who leaked her prior email…
She doesn’t live in Newtonville or near any village center and may not realize the hardship that taking away our parking lot will have on Newtonville residents and business owners. Her intention was to undermine our efforts to resist the development plans. We told her how disappointed we were that anyone in Newton would do such a thing to their neighbors. The clear lesson here, for all of us, is DO NOT FORWARD. By all means, spread the word about what to do to help, but not by forwarding our specific instruction messages and names.
Previously: Here’s an earlier Kouril Grieser email.
Let me be the first to commend Kouril Greiser on her email. As noted earlier, it appears that she and I are diametrically opposed on the virtues of the proposed project. But, we don’t have enough of this kind of tactical thinking.
There’s no reason, however, to play coy about the plan or her intentions. It’s perfectly legitimate to support Emily’s resolution, both to put a ceiling (literally) on the project and to express the strength or weakness of support for a larger project.
That said, to any aldercritters dropping by, do not vote for Emily’s resolution. The project should not be so constrained.
wow, that’s quite a find. These parts are interesting to me: “Emily’s resolution describes a scenario that is not what we want, it is also a political device…” and
“Newton Villages Alliance… have come together to fight over-development together…. that hopes to have an impact electing and supporting officials who will protect our villages and neighborhoods from the development that is currently crowding and urbanizing Newton.” So Kouril Grieser, and the Isabelle Albeck/John Koots group are working together towards stopping the future from ruining Newton?
I have had emails that I sent to Aldermen as well as other city officials get forwarded around town to many people without my permission. I think when you send an email to an elected official you should assume that whatever you write in it can and will become part of the public domain and that they will most likely forward it on to other people even if you feel what you are confiding in them is private.
For an advocacy group that hopes to influence the city’s development plans, I’m puzzled by their secrecy. When their anonymous web site went on-line I just assumed that they were just getting on their feet and that once they were up and running they’d be forthcoming about the identities of at least the main organizers.
From this email – ” but not by forwarding our … names” it sounds like they want to remain anonymous on an ongoing basis. It doesn’t seem like it will make for effective lobbying.
Can someone on here please summarize what is going on here with Austin Street? It is difficult to follow what is happening. I think a synopsis would be helpful for people like me who don’t really understand the story. What I think is happening is that the city has or is trying to sell the large parking lot in Newtonville near the Shaws supermarket to a developer for a large sum of money and that developer plans on building a 3-4 story tall development there that will have retail and housing and the housing will be all rentals? Will there be a lot of 40B housing in there? Why is all this 40B housing coming to Newton all of a sudden?
A listserv is an interesting choice for a secret e-mail. Too bad she failed to spell David Olson’s e-mail address correctly.
I do live near a village center and I’m not sure why sending this upset them so much:
Dear Mayor and Aldermen, I support the development of Austin St. and oppose the message I received below. I think transit oriented growth is important to keeping our villages vibrant, increasing affordable housing and reducing air and water pollution.
Regards – Lucia Dolan
Begin forwarded message:
From: Newtonville Trust
Date: May 23, 2014 11:26:01 AM EDT
To:
Subject: Please call/email the Mayor right now. He named the worst possible developer.
Reply-To: “Change.org”
Does this confirm what we basically already know, that the folks at NVA and Kouril Greiser want NO redevelopment of the parking lot. Why don’t they just come out and say it, instead of hiding behind Emily’s resolution.
So now I have a question for Emily as a constituent. Is this political machinations why you filed the resolution? Would you prefer NO development at Austin Street, or is your best case for the sight what you have put forward in the resolution?
As for the fact that Kouril Greiser trusts that no one will forward the email, I can sympathize. Like Sean, I understand why she sent the email, even if it looks unfortunate.
I feel some sense of vindication for my prior commentary. People leapt to the defense of the faction I criticized, mistakenly or naively believing it was wrong to suggest that they wanted to freeze everything in time and were masking it behind other positions. I think that view was spelled out before in the paper quite clearly last week, but these tactics seem to confirm that the surface agenda is not the real one.
And this, as an aside, speaks to my point about the snowflake attitude: “We told her how disappointed we were that anyone in Newton would do such a thing to their neighbors.”
Yeah, everyone does everything everywhere. You have to know that. I’ve made similar mistakes before (regarding emails — even private non sneaky ones — that are then reported in venues similar to this one). I don’t blame the people forwarding or try to guilt trip folks by saying that this is unbecoming of a certain community. I accepted full and immediate responsibility and apologized. That’s the way it goes.
Stop trying to arbitrate “correct” community values and behavior like this.
The motion failed seven to fifteen. However many who opposed the resolution do not support a 5 storey building. Now Setti W. will have to come up with some magic to get a developer to mve forward on this project.
Is there a reason that it cannot just remain a nice big open parking lot? Why is the city selling off properties like this? What are they going to start selling next? All this new retail space just cannibalizes existing retail businesses. In the last few weeks we have lost the Staples in Newton Centre, Appetito, Jamjuli, The B Street restaurant, Newbury Comics and I don’t know what else. Money just doesn’t magically materialize to support all of this new business. It is just like a casino…it takes from other sectors of the local economy and ends up repressing the community it goes into. Mark my words…more businesses will be folding over the summer. There is only so much discretionary money out there to support all of this.
Well, tonight’s vote showed one thing: it is not going to be easy to get 16 votes for a special permit.
I absolutely think that whatever happens with a development on Austin Street, the land should be leased, not sold. The MBTA did not sell Riverside; BH Normandy ‘only’ has an 85-year lease. (To put things in perspective, that’s 2.3x the lifespan of the old Newton North.) Who knows what we (or more accurately, our grandkids, for those who will have them), will want that Austin Street land to be in the future? It’s proven very useful to get back properties like the Bigelow and Carr schools. Who knows, maybe the Austin Street land will be needed for a school itself.
Something at the max allowable on the site likely won’t make it through, remember developers will come with whatever can make them the most money (for the most part) it is up to the city to make sure that fits within the zoning but also within the community. I think something 5 stories will be fine, if it is designed well, stepped back, site-lines to the church examined etc. and is not just a solid box up 5 stories (though that is technically what the Masonic building is and I am sure many that are against this would have been against that when it was built 100 years ago…) That said something closer to 4 stories would likely fit better and I would be much more in favor for what that’s worth, but either way it will be fine. We need more folks in the Village center to sustain the growth and success that has happened to Newtonville, it is reliant now on far too many people from outside the village, mostly driving here… I am also in favor of a lease for a lesser amount than the sale would bring in. We as a city do need to stop selling off this and that, the mistakes of the 80’s should put enough of a bad taste regarding selling city property…Either way a development here will be fine, created with proper TDM (transportation demand management, look it up) measures it won’t add much more in the way of auto traffic either (compared to whatever is proposed over in the office park by Needham which has zero transit access nor any amenities nearby, unless they are planning an Assembly Square West and literally building everything one would need…)
@fignewtonville: Here is the full wording of the resolution, I think reading this should make it clear why I filed it. I was very pleased with the level of support it received tonight, and the additional supportive statements it received even from those who did not vote for it.
***********************************************************************
WHEREAS, the Newton Board of Aldermen declared the Austin St. parking lot surplus in hopes of finding a use that was compatible with the neighborhood and that maintained adequate public parking for existing businesses and other uses of Newtonville Square,
AND WHEREAS, the Joint Advisory Planning Group (JAPG), appointed to draft a framework for the Austin St. parcel, envisioned a development “benefitting not only those who occupy the site but others, as well, including nearby businesses and residents”,
AND WHEREAS, the level of activity in Newtonville Square, including use of the Austin St. lot, has increased considerably in the years since the parcel was declared surplus and since the JAPG report was issued,
AND WHEREAS, all but one of the proposals submitted in response to the February 14, 2013 RFP to develop the Austin Street parking lot propose projects far greater in number of housing units and overall scale and density than was discussed by the Board of Aldermen or set as a minimum in the RFP,
AND WHEREAS, numerous residents – including through participation in a survey of over 700 Newtonville residents and businesses conducted by the newly formed Newtonville Area Council – have expressed concern regarding the density of the first round of proposals to develop the Austin St. site,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Aldermen respectfully requests that Mayor Warren work with his chosen developer to ensure that the proposal be limited to a height of three stories or less, include no more than forty units of housing, and include sufficient parking for current and future uses of Newtonville square, including possible additions to existing structures and additional buildout of the area to the extent allowed by law.
Thanks Emily for all your terrific work on this issue. What a contrast to the ridiculous statements made by M.A. on this topic. If she isn’t more careful she may find herself unelectable in Ward 2 in the future.
It’s not acceptable for kids to be bullied but apparently the gloves are off once one is an adult and then it’s fine to attack people for what they believe in and are willing to stand up for? I’d much rather see lively debate over the real issues in Newton than see potshots taken at a specific person as is the case in this thread. There has been much discussion already on Austin St on the scale of the project et al. And I think generally the consensus was that something more modest would be acceptable to the majority of Newtonville residents. So Alderman Norton’s petition to put a cap on the project seems perfectly reasonable. In fact this cap was right around what was suggested in the original RFP.
In an earlier posting a few people including former alderman Greer Tan-Swiston and alderman Norton mentioned cyber-bullying, getting one’s car keyed, tires slashed, getting weird and threatening phone calls etc. This is the reality of the world we all live in, and likely why many of the members of the Newton Villages Alliance have chosen to remain anonymous. I have seen people pulled aside and threatened after meetings at City Hall because of what they said at a public meeting. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. Is this what we want to encourage in our community and the example we want to set for our children? I think not. A further example from a recent post – Greg Reibman and Alderman Hess-Mahan: Referring to the Newton Villages Alliance as C.A.V.E. or B.A.N.A.N.A.S. per your acronyms is not really acceptable even if you were trying to be funny. Alderman Hess-Mahan – as an elected official and former candidate for Mayor I certainly would expect more from you.
@Peter: There are certainly things I’ve said on the blog over the years that I wish I hadn’t, but my CAVE comment wasn’t one of them (more on that in a minute). But it wasn’t until I read your full comment that I understood that in this specific instance you were complaining about Kouril Grieser and her anonymous allies being bullied and not Lucia Dolan who was a named target in Kouril Grieser’s email blast. Again, here’s what Kouril Grieser wrote (the bold emphasis is mine)…
I hope you’ll agree, that’s bullying.
I also hope Kouril Grieser is alone in believing that Dolan was trying harm the people of Newtonville simply by standing up and saying “I see it differently.”
As for my comment that Newton Villages Alliance could “rename themselves CAVE? Citizens Against Virtually Everything” please recall that at the time I wrote that (and still as a matter of fact) we didn’t know who this group was. I was not calling out any individual(s) for their views or suggesting that they weren’t entitled to have any particular perspective. I was criticizing a group that to this day still won’t put names to their convictions.
Peter – I don’t see why asking who the people in NVA are is a problem. Did the “don’t forward this message” come from NVA? If not, I’d think they’d want to distance themselves from it ASAP. If it is and they’re putting themselves out there as a community minded organization, then that’s an issue for some people. The shenanigans go both ways.
I am with Julia: the Austin st land should be leased, not sold. Keeping options open for future needs make sense.
Feel free to disagree with me respectfully.
I agree with Newton Gal. I like the parking lot and it’s one of the reasons I shop in Newtonville.
I’d be very interested to see a leasing proposal for Austin Street (compared with a proposal to sell) and how that work for the city financially, but let’s consider how different this is from past city leases. It’s quite different than short-term leases on school buildings (e.g. Bigelow, Oak Hill), where there were short to medium-term needs for the property and the facility, or selling off sites like the Hyde where there was a strategic need for a school on that site (big mistake, Newton Highlands residents knew it). The Austin Street site would have to be an extremely long lease with a particular type of building that would likely have to be torn down to fulfill another need. Its position relative to other city properties, schools, etc would also have to be considered as part of the planning.
@Peter – “Cyber-bullying”? I’m afraid I don’t see it. I’m not seeing any personal attacks. The only comments I’ve seen are people taking issue with public positions that individuals have taken on the Austin St proposal.
If there’s any “car keying” or “tire slashing” of proponents or opponents of Austin St that would certainly be a serious issue. I haven’t heard of any. Do you have any details?
The closest I see to a personal attack is the excerpt from the email in the original post about the person who forwarded the email. That seems a bit of an over-reaction to me, but doesn’t qualify in my mind in any way as “cyber-bullying”.
Jerry, I was merely referencing previous comments by two aldermen that car keying, slashed tires has happened in the past. Maybe I’m more sensitive to perceived bullying/harassment/aggression than others because of my own situation having been on the receiving end of it for well over a year with no end in sight. It gives one a different perspective on things.
Greg, I do not tolerate bullying of any kind. Plain and simple. I wasn’t privy to the entire email as you were so couldn’t comment on what I had not previously seen.
Peter is correct about some of the bullying on this site. I for one feel demeaned by G.R. when I have spoken against the Austin St. development. Many others feel intimidated as well.
Colleen,
Who is M.A.? And what did she say?
Peter, I think there is a difference between bullying and differences of opinion. I also think the problem of bullying among our youth shouldn’t be confused with arguing for your position as an adult. I haven’t seen any bullying of NVA members, but I have seen them be very sensitive to the fact that I choose to remain anonymous, that folks disagree with them on the use of the parking lot on a reasonable basis (hey, reasonable minds can disagree), and that non-Newtonville folks are weighing in on these issues. And yet I see that they too are mostly anonymous and that most of NVA is made up of folks from other villages.
As for tires slashed and all that, well, c’mon. Is anyone actually seeing that happening? I will say that I’ve been confronted quite a few times by folks at the various meetings who are angry about the development, and some of those conversations were uncomfortable both in tone and in invasion of person space. But after some length of time those folks calmed down and we had a rational conversation.
In general I find there are bad actors on both sides of any issue that folks are passionate about. Instead of us focusing on that and complaining about that, why don’t we focus on the issues at hand. False accusations of bullying and whining about poor treatment just doesn’t really move the needle for me. Take a deep breath and work on your facts…
So let’s focus on the facts:
Ground Lease: Lots of development projects have long term ground leases. I think the benefit the city gets from a long term ground lease is very minimal. It sounds good (hey we get the land back) but realize at that point 99 years in the future or great grandkids will likely be dealing with it, and are very likely to just renew the lease. If the concern is enforcing city rights to the land for the public space, you can put restrictions on title to deal with that. Do you think the city will just tear down a large apartment building? And potentially it can effect value, as condo’s sold via a ground lease only have a leasehold interest. I vote for maximizing value now.
True intentions: Let’s try and put everyone’s cards on the table. Emily, you are sounding more and more like a politician. Yes, I understand your motion and the language just used. But WOULD YOU VOTE FOR A SCALED DOWN PROJECT OF ANY SORT? After reading the email that started this thread, it seems clear to me that the NVA folks are clearly opposed to any development. Are you? As one of your constituants, I’d love to know. As for the email tomfoolery evidenced above, I don’t really think it is of any value except to confirm what we already knew. And who hasn’t been burned by a email forward in this day and age.
What the vote taken last night really means: Not much. There are seven folks who supported it. I don’t know who, but I’m guessing that not all seven are opposed to development. Colleen, these meetings are like a dance in my view. A few steps in your direction, and few steps in my direction. But in the end the dance will end and the special permit will be issued, unless the Mayor leaves office before that point. 15 alderman voted for it. The Mayor supports it. And judging by the polls and the number of folks who spoke at your meeting, I’d say the vast majority of folks support some project there. We can argue about size and scope, but I’m confident that after all is said and done there will be a redevelopment.
So deep breaths folks. No one is trying to persecute you over a parking lot. There are no horrible conspiracies (either blog coverage related or developer related). There will be no tires slashed or threatening phone calls. This isn’t Newton North or an override, which really enflames passions on both sides. Just because folks on this blog or in real life disagree with you and gosh, vote against you, or speak out against your opinions at meetings doesn’t mean much except that they disagree with you. And a little gentle mocking is par for the course. I’ve lost count of how many times I called Greg out over the years on various issues. And I might even say that based on recent behavior (including the email above that started this thread) that a silly name might be well deserved at this point.
Just to clarify, I meant a silly name for NVA. We already have silly names for Greg.
S.Albright who is one of the alderman from Ward 2.
Colleen,
What did Susan say that you found ridiculous?
The NVA folks, or at least the one criticized by name in the original post, wrote an entire TAB op-ed naming specific people she hated and suggesting elaborate conspiracies were afoot. Seems like it’s fair for people to push back.
A loud minority constantly presumes to speak on everyone’s behalf and police everyone’s viewpoints as the correct “Newton resident” viewpoints — probably believing truly that they are actually in the majority. It’s not intimidation for people to point out to those folks that there’s not a consensus on those points.
This whole country seems to have a problem with believing that hearing the expression of (non-hate-filled) opposing viewpoints is a tyrannical restriction upon freedom of opinion. I guess everyone just wants to live in a bubble of universal agreement where no one has to hear another perspective or accept something they don’t support.
Enough Greg. You criticized me in an earlier post to ‘be mature’ in my comments when I sarcastically mentioned the new Godzilla movie when referencing proposals for Austin Street. I then asked about the appropriateness of your CAVE comment and got no reply. Are you now saying that your CAVE comment was mature? Please!
Seeing as you like cutesy acronyms, how’s this…Are you and your buddies members of PEANUT? People Encouraging All Newton Urbanization Today?
Actually Bob, both your Godzilla comment and my CAVE comment were pretty cheeky and, yes, not particularly mature.
And good one on PEANUT. Really.
To be honest, whenever folks say NVA, for some reasons the Monty Python scene with the Knights that say “ni” comes to mind.
As in they are the Knights that say “no” and the guardians of the sacred parking lot. Immature I know. But life is better with more Monty Python in your life.
Always look on the bright side of life folks.
Sean, please listen to Susan’s speech before the Board last night and decide for yourself. Everyone who spoke last night made some great points on the issue. Of course Dick Blazar and Emily Norton made very compelling arguments which were fun to hear.
Colleen,
You can’t summarize for a very busy guy?
Colleen, with all due respect, every aldermen–including Ald. Norton–voted for the resolution authored by the other two aldermen from Ward 2, Ald. Albright and Ald. Johnson. That resolution focused on the community engagement process going forward, and general principles that the administration should consider in submitting a project for special permit approval with the developers, Austin Street Partners. The reasons she expressed last night were very similar to those of 15 other aldermen who voted against Ald. Norton’s resolution.
A number of us felt that setting specific limits on the development was arbitrary. For example, the resolution would limit the residential component to 40 units, but was silent on the number of bedrooms and the mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. Forty 3-bedroom units, as Ald. Albright pointed out, might well be worse than, say, 80 1-bedroom units in terms of the number of residents, vehicles and their actual impact on traffic and parking.
No disrespect to Ald. Norton, who I believe is trying to convey the feedback she has received from Newtonville residents who have contacted her about Austin Street, but Ald. Albright and most of her colleagues (myself included) felt that until we have a concrete proposal before us, it is difficult to ascertain the “right-sized” number of units, stories and other parameters. Right now, of course, we literally have a blank slate. We are all trying to keep an open mind and look forward to hearing from residents and businesses who will be affected by this project. Of those I have heard from, not all or even a majority are opposed to redeveloping the parking lot and not all of them agree on the right size for this project.
Thanks Ted for your perspective. I listened intently to each alderman that spoke last night. I do recommend to anyone who wants to gain some understanding of this issue past and present to watch the board meeting from last night. It is available on Newtv.org and easy to access. Everyone who spoke is worth listening to.
I watched last night’s meeting and thought many Aldermen spoke well, including Susan Albright. As far as having a blank slate, I don’t see that as a negative at all. It gives residents another opportunity to weigh in on the outcome of the project. I frankly didn’t love any of the proposals and that appears to be an issue for a lot of folks, so going back to square one seems like a reasonable solution.