Can we agree that there’s no way to stop development of additional housing units in Newton (Chestnut Hill Square, Riverside, Manchester, Needham Street)? And, can we agree that there’s no way to prevent small people from becoming residents in those new units? And, can we agree that those small people are going to require — state truancy laws and laws against child labor, you know — some learning up? And, can we agree that our learning-up facilities are a smidge too crowded already?
I’m not convinced that the school expansion plans adequately addressed the likely or possible influx of children from new development. But, even if they account for peak small people, the expansion plans are short-sighted, given the expansion of some schools (Bowen, for one) way beyond what is reasonable given the core infrastructure or site capacity.
In any case, let’s stop complaining about the impact of new development on school overcrowding like it’s some surprise. We’ve known development is coming for a while. Time to build an elementary school or two and a middle school.
Sean – The school department is definitely planning for increased capacity in the elementary schools in the next few years – significantly increasing the size of both Angier and Zervas (roughly doubling).
Is that enough? I don’t know?
Angier is going to have FOUR kinder classes next year. Angier is being built to have four of each classroom, which doesn’t address additional housing that is going to be built. In fact, our leaders need to consider building more elementary schools/middle schools to add capacity and NOT just expand our current schools.
What about fire and police too?
What is our current population and what is the current population post CHESTNUT HILL, RIVERSIDE, WELLS OFFICE PARK? It is not just schools.
It’s also traffic (do we need more?), lack of green space (do we need less?) and burden on our infra-structures (do the roads and sewers need more use?). Newton is already built-out!!
I do not think we should be cavalier about making decisions that require us to build new schools. We already have to repair or replace many of the ones we already have, which means we are already facing numerous overrides in our future. Why would we voluntarily add to that financial burden? Every time we pass an override, we make Newton more unaffordable for the low-moderate income households we claim to value having here.
Also as Alderman Fuller has laid out in great detail, we face a nearly billion dollar unfunded liability for pension and retiree health care costs. We should be putting away over $30M/year toward retiree health care costs alone… we are putting less than $1M away.
Taking into account these massive costs we are already facing, again I have to wonder, why would we choose to incentivize development that will only raise our costs further?
I value the economic diversity that currently exists in Newton. But with each tax increase we are pricing more and more people out.
Emily,
You raise some great points. Unfortunately, some of the goals you discuss are in conflict.
The economic forces on the city and region are making housing unaffordable. Doing nothing exacerbates the problem. If you value and want to maintain economic diversity, we have to act.
We can make some drastic zoning decisions to try and maintain smaller (presumably less expensive) homes. But, take a walk around most blocks in the city and you’ll find a teardown … because it’s the price of land that’s making housing unaffordable, not the housing stock. So, zoning is not only a tough sell, but it is unlikely to help meet our shared goal of economic diversity.
We could start buying homes and then making them available for less than market price, with a restriction on future sale prices. Prohibitively expensive in the first place. And, all sorts of follow-on consequences (like what’s the subsidized homeowner’s incentive to improve her property if she doesn’t get the benefit of the increased market price?).
The best way to maintain economic diversity is to tap the market forces* that want to add more housing stock to the city, mostly in the form of multi-family units — apartment buildings**. If we are going to add housing stock, we’re going to need more school capacity.
It is an odd conundrum: to promote economic diversity, we’re going to need to invest in our educational infrastructure. Want more bad news? Economic diversity necessarily means a lower average per-property assessment. So, promoting economic diversity undermines the basis for financing the operations of our schools.
Cavalier? I don’t think so.
*I’m not a market purist. There are plenty of instances where the market fails, including housing. But, it’s a mistake to ignore major market trends.
** At some point, I’ll get around to writing a post on why we should give up on the notion of a detached, single-family, starter home in Newton.
Emily: How would you fund that $30 million/year you cite without a tax increase of some sort?
Not sure this is where Bill was headed, but expanding the tax base spreads out the challenge of meeting the unfunded liability. Plus, with the obvious exception of education, many services and infrastructure are more efficiently provided with more residents.
@Bill: A certain amount of tax increases are probably in our future. I just think we should be pulling out all the stops to reduce that burden, not add to it.
Emily,
Make the pie (and the Austin Street development) higher. If we add more taxpayers, the per-taxpayer share of the unfunded liability goes down.
Depends on who the taxpayers are. My household pays ~9K/year in property taxes, yet my 3 kids alone cost the city ~$45K/year on average, not to mention our portion of police, roads, fire, etc. (Thanks for the subsidy, folks!)
@Alderman Norton: But now that you’ve taken on the thankless job of being alderman (and a blogging alderman at that!) I’m pretty sure we’re back to getting more from you than you put in.
@Greg: Probably depends on who you ask 🙂
Emily Norton — I hope Alderman don’t buy the talk that all school costs are incremental — they’re not. If Newton paid a special premium for today’s nice air and sunshine, the fact that you got a few more in the yard enjoying this day isn’t anyone’s extra cost. We are a civilized community, we school, we shouldn’t count heads and point fingers
Wow, Hoss, you’re turning all soft. Nice and true comment.
And, of course, while we’re paying to educate peoples’ children now, it should work out in the long term when folks stay in Newton and keep paying taxes long after their children graduate. That’s going to be the case for me, we’re one year away from being done with Newton’s schools.
Now if only there were more places where seniors can live once they no longer need that house with a yard for all those kids. Condos or apartments near the Senior Center, a grocery store and a pharmacy would be ideal. Alderman Norton any idea where we might be able to locate such a facility?
Bill Brandel, regarding spending an extra $30M annually on OPEB, the real question is why should Newton taxpayers spend $30M/year on lavish healthcare benefits for government unions that are being offered less and less in the private sector?
But if you want to free up $30M in spending to fund lavish healthcare benefits for government unions, then pass the naming rights program, reform SPED along the recommendations of the SPED Review Report and get full reimbursement for out-of-district students in Newton school and you’ll find $30M/year without looking TOO, TOO, TOO hard. That’s $30M/year instantly, an annuity, that pays for a lot of OPEB benefits.
Greg, after 17 years, our kids are done with the Newton Public Schools as of next Tuesday. So I am happy to fulfill my part of the social compact and pay property taxes to educate other people’s kids for a change.
I’m with Hoss and Ted,
It’s all about the social compact. We shouldn’t be doing a cost-benefit analysis regarding education. Two years ago, we opted out of public school for our now 4th- and 7th-grade children. I don’t feel any less obligation to contribute to the education of our city’s children.
If anything, the debate only highlights how nuts it is to fund education with property taxes.
Greg,
I wonder what the overall impact is of not enough senior housing. Do seniors stay in houses that are too big, because they don’t want to leave Newton. Or, do they leave Newton. The first would have a dampening effect on school population and costs. The latter would lead to more kids, without any offsetting property tax revenue.
Ultimately, it shouldn’t matter. Newton ought to welcome children with open arms, to any development. (Channeling Anatol Z., here.) And, we ought to have ample options for seniors who want to stay. Let’s make the right kind of community and let the chips fall where they may.
I’ve been doing my bit for fulfilling the social contract for the last 10 years, and happily so. However, most of my friends have left the city for a place where they don’t have to maintain a home or shovel snow. It becomes an issue for everyone at some point. They all left empty nests, sold to families with kids, and there you go.
As far as the OPEB discussion goes, if anyone thinks that Newton is solving this nationwide issue on its own, they’re simply not being realistic. It’s a national issue and will require state and federal solutions, in addition to local revenues. And if you think this is bad, just wait until critical numbers of us need assisted living or nursing home care. This is NOT just a financial issue – taking care of very senior citizens is also part of the social contract.
The social compact angle, beyond just schools and children, hits upon why it’s so troubling when we see rhetoric about “new residents” (implied to be in affordable housing, or explicitly stated to be such) supposedly “costing the city” more in services than they bring in revenue. It’s a far worse sentiment than NIMBYism. It’s very exclusionary and, I’d even venture, a bit cruel. There’s also a really strong hint of trying to keep out the “wrong” people.
It’s just math folks, and it has to add up, or else we won’t be able to make good on the promises we have made to people – promises they are relying on for a secure retirement.
Bill laments,
I think that’s taking political correctness too far. Certainly, we should be welcoming new residents with open arms, regardless of their creed, income level, etc., and yes, transient residents may reap some of the benefits but not be subject to the same long-term social contract as those here for the long-term. But in creating new housing and altering the balance of our city, I think it’s perfectly fair to look at the impact on us all, including the impact on the school system which the “new residents” would also inherit. Like Emily says, we have to find a way to make the numbers add up to run this city.
Emily – I could not disagree more strongly. It’s not just about math – it’s about community.
…as well.
In theory, new housing development is expected to be a good thing.
In reality, we get non-rateable developments like Avalon Bay that privatize profits for developers and socialize costs to taxpayers through increased school enrollment levels.
Now, Dinosaur Capital Management wants to take a previously commercial property on 70 Rowe Street and turn it into housing. That hits taxpayers two ways:
First, residential properties are taxed at a lower rate resulting in an incremental decline in tax revenue
Second, the residential properties will increase the number of students in the school system, resulting in an incremental increase in school spending