Tonight’s meeting about the proposed 150-unit 40B project for 70 Rowe Street attracted a large crowd to the Turtle Lane Playhouse, where representatives from the Planning Department, and developer Scott Oran of Dinosaur Capital Partners, himself a resident of West Newton, gave presentations and fielded questions.
I was not taking copious notes, as I was doing my best to capture the feel of the meeting in tweets and Tout video clips (limited to 1-minute), which you can find here.
The overriding concern was the density, while a number of people voiced support for affordable housing itself.
I think the dominant concern about the number of units was the impact on traffic, particularly on Rowe Street, which would be the entrance and exit from the project — not Webster Street. Although as one resident pointed out, the added cars won’t just end up on Commonwealth Ave, but go in all directions. There was particular concern about the effect on the already overburdened, underpoliced and dysfunctional intersection of Wolcott and Lexington Streets. Developer Scott Oran pointed out that the White construction company traffic would be eliminated, but conceded that 6am construction vehicle traffic would likely be replaced by rush hour traffic.
There was cynicism about past traffic promises, and skepticism about future projections. No traffic study has been done yet. The 150 units would have 1.25 parking spaces per unit, if I recall correctly (I’m not sure if that’s the market units or an overall average). Oran said the affordable units would only have one parking space each, because ‘people living in affordable housing don’t have more than one car.’ (Huh???)
There was also much skepticism about projections for only 34 children (and something like 29 going to public schools), concern about what the actual impact on schools would be, and bafflement at why impact on schools cannot be taken into consideration. (That’s the way 40B was written, folks. If you’re not happy, take it up with our Statehouse delegation.) One parent noted at the beginning of the meeting that tonight was Burr School 5th grade graduation, and a big Little League night, and if not for that, there would probably have been 20 more families represented at the meeting.
I asked whether the affordable units would be guaranteed to be affordable in perpetuity. Oran said they would be have to be affordable for 30 years, which was as good as perpetuity as far as he was concerned. But we know that’s not really true. Hey, I’m 59. I remember being 29. Thirty years can go by pretty fast.
If the affordable 20% of the apartments drop off the inventory in 30 years, the entire 150 units would still be in the denominator, but no longer in the numerator, of the affordable-to-total housing unit ratio, making it ever more difficult to achieve and maintain the 10% ratio that would free Newton of the threat of 40B being used to build oversized market-rate houses.
Anyone else who was there at the meeting, jump in with whatever I’ve missed.
Why not make sure that the city redistricts that development to Williams, Brown and Newton South which is not as overcrowded as Burr, Day and NNHS. That would at least solve the student problem.
And if the city think that it will only bring in 34 students – they will be sadly mistaken.
34 kids going to school for 66 units that have two or three bedrooms???? I have a three bedroom house and we send two kids to school, as does many of my neighbors! I don’t know who does the estimates, but the estimates for Avalon (Needham Street) was grossly under estimated, and now Countryside is really full, and the bus from Brown to Avalon was redistricted this year because of the school population in Avalon.
Could someone educate me how these projected numbers come to be? Don’t get me wrong. I would love more kids in schools, but right now Burr is over populated. . . . . we don’t have a long term goal for how to educated the kids that are moving into the district. We need capacity and if we don’t have the space, then we need to build it.
The city is planning to spend $40,000,000 to increase the capacity at Zervas by 160 students. For about the same amount of money, the city could build a 350 student school in Newton Upper Falls providing twice the number of added capacity for grade school students. This would also give NUF a community school, something that was taken away from them decades ago.
This would not be an easy solution; however it is not a simple problem. The city is pushing for more residential development, and the SC is trying to handle the enrollment increase within the existing 15 locations for grade school students. Our city population is moving back above the historical 90,000 number when the city had 22 grade schools. The SC needs the will to do the right thing, if they truly want to maintain the village concept in Newton..
The whole thing is a disaster!! At least 100 kids (probably more) will be going to Newton schools that are already overpopulated. The cars will be parked all over our streets since t here is only 1.25 parking spot per unit. The traffic would be horrible. I just don’t understand how the management of Newton is letting it happen. It shows complete lack of concern for the residents of Newton who work hard to pay taxes and send their kids to schools. And why? To ruin our school system, nice neighborhood feel and make people sell their houses and leave, so the developer could make some extra buck?
Patrick, I’m not sure Newton’s Political Insider Group wants to maintain the village concept in Newton. The PIG backed Eve Tapper for Ward 2 Alderman last year and I think Tapper said it best when she said she wanted to urbanize Newton in general and Newton in particular.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2013/10/video-heres-the-debate-between-norton-and-tapper/#axzz35CKdPKBs
Newton residents don’t want 40B housing projects that privatize profits for developers, socialize costs to taxpayers and degrade the quality of life that we’ve come to expect.
This project concerns me in so many ways beyond just the sheer size of it:
(1) Schools and tax burden on the city. Scott Oran of Dinosaur Capital stated an estimate of 34 kids at a cost to the city of $10,000 per kid per year. He went on to say that the tax revenue from the project would be about $350,000. So in his mind revenue neutral (factoring in only school costs not other incurred expenses). It is, however, well known I believe that the cost of educating a child in Newton is actually around $16,000. And with 66 two or three bedroom units 34 kids seems to be a gross underestimate. Let’s for argument sake say there are actually 66 kids – that makes a tax burden to the city of a little over $1,056,000 to educate the added kids compared to $350K in revenue. So who picks up the $700,000 in slack? Ah yes, that would be the rest of us via another tax override.
(2) Only 30 of the 150 units are affordable (20%). The other 120 are to be rented at market value. This 20% is the bare minimum which could be offered. If a mix of 50% and 80% of median income units were offered that number would be required to be 25% affordable units which would be better.
(3) This project has a 30 yr expiration on the affordable units. That is, after 30 years they all become regular housing stock and no longer count towards the 10% affordable housing mandated number. So in 30 years are we to okay with a sister development being built next door just so that we can keep up with our offering of affordable housing? I thought that the City of Newton and the state was only approving perpetually affordable units, i.e. ones which don’t fall off the list after a minimum of 30 yrs?
(4) Traffic is already is disaster on Auburndale Ave, Webster, Wolcott and Rowe as a cut through between Auburndale and West Newton. Cars and trucks alike speed through our roads. A projection of an increase of 40 cars in and out during morning and evening rush hours seems a gross underestimate and would make an already bad situation even worse.
Keeping this property as commercial/business use would be so much more beneficial to the community and City as a whole. No need to bus these kids to a different school (Burr can’t be expanded and is already bursting); less traffic overall; and importantly tax revenue positive for the city so we the rest of the residents won’t be burdened with the tax deficit.
Peter’s post crystallized everything I want to say about 40B housing projects and 70 Rowe Street in particular at this moment in time!
This proposal is so ludicrous its presentation should have been accompanied by a laugh track. A classic example of why 40B is bad for Newton.
Julia, thank you for providing a very complete report on the community meeting.
I wanted to clarify that, regarding the affordability requirement, when I said “thirty years was as good as perpetuity,” I meant that all of the affordable apartments will be affordable in perpetuity.
Sorry for any misunderstanding, all of the affordable apartments will remain affordable in perpetuity.
Joshua, some people on this website complain that the new NVA group will not come out and publicly identify themselves and their specific agenda. Yet these same people seem to tolerate similar action by the group you refer to as Newton’s Political Insider Group. In my book, that is hypocrisy.
I am very concerned about all the talk of urbanizing our village centers. People made a choice to leave their urban locations so as to benefit from Newton’s schools. That does not give them the right to change suburban Newton into urban Newton. If we are to move away from the village concept in Newton, city officials, and others trying to change Newton, should at least stop using the village concept as a reason for why Newton is so great and unique.
Patrick, I’m not a member of the Newton Villages Alliance but I support their efforts regarding Austin Street, Court Street & 70 Rowe Street.
After reading your post twice, I agree with you about the hypocrisy in that the people criticizing NVA tolerate the lack of honesty, integrity and transparency on the part of the PIG.
As much as I’d like to take credit for coining the term PIG, I have to tip my hat to Geoff Epstein for that one.
I think residents who oppose projects like this and the other monstrous apartment proposal on Wells Ave, need to understand they are being poorly served by the Mayor’s office. As Mayor Warren contemplates his political future, he most certainly wants his record to include the creation of large numbers of affordable housing units. In both the aforementioned cases, it’s my opinion that Mayor Warren is putting his own political interests above the interests of the community. If I’m wrong, and his apparent support for these projects is philosophical, then he’s clearly out of touch with the majority of Newton residents on this issue.
What a strong mayor would do, and what Mayor Warren should do, is pull these developers into private meetings and summon his inner Winston Churchill, making it clear “we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”!!! Long protracted battles with municipalities are costly to developers, and change the underlying financial dynamic of a 40B. The Mayor is uniquely positioned to turn the tables on these developers, and I think people should question why he’s not using the power of his office to do that.
Mike Striar, I unfortunately agree with your assessment regarding the mayor’s actions, and inaction on certain issues, showing more of an interest in his own political career than the welfare of Newton. (I am expecting Bill Brandel to respond to both your comment and mine.)
That said, I believe it is the state that is imparting the same minimum 40B requirement equally across all cities and towns in MA regardless of the current profiles of each city’s/town’s development. It could be agrued that the mayor is willing to accept short term pain to reach the 10% level so the city would have more control of 40B developments going forward. Based on his behavior, I do not think that is his motivation. His silence is troubling.
Our political representation on Beacon Hill should be working to adjust the 40B requirements so Newton, and other mature communities, could preserve their character and community benefits. Again, I do not have confidence that they will act in our collective best interest.
Patrick, I also meant to say you made good points about your concerns regarding all the talk of urbanizing our village centers, as well as how city officials, and others are trying to change Newton by moving away from the village concept yet they are using the village concept as a reason for why Newton is so great and unique.
I also agree with your comments where you say “Our political representation on Beacon Hill should be working to adjust the 40B requirements so Newton, and other mature communities, could preserve their character and community benefits.”
I also agree with Mike Striar’s post, but unfortunately for Newton, Mayor Warren believes in selling Newton residents on 40B Housing projects. It would really be dishonest if in 2017-2020, Mayor Warren was pitching an override for “overcrowded schools and higher enrollment” when it is his avid promotion of 40B Housing projects that is causing it.
Quoting from the Newton Tab: “Residents said traffic in the area is already heavy and they feared the additional traffic to and from the proposed development would make it worse. Oran, who said he has lived in West Newton for 20 years, acknowledged the problem.
“Your traffic is my traffic,” Oran said.”
Looking up an address for the developer, living on the south side of the Mass Pike in West Newton doesn’t really qualify as being “part of traffic” from this development…
Also echoing an earlier comment, it is kind of convenient that the financial burden of children in the complex almost exactly matches estimates on future revenue.