Last Thursday a special meeting of the Zoning & Planning Committee discussed #237‐14, Alderman Amy Sangiolo’s request for a one-year moratorium on demolition of single- and two-family homes, while the Board of Aldermen addresses issues of the size and scale of new construction, the conversion of single-family to two- and more family structures, the definition of two-family vs attached dwellings, snout and sideways-facing houses, regrading and retaining walls, and loss of trees and green space. (This was a followup to an earlier discussion I wrote about in June.)
Both the meeting audio and Amy’s PowerPoint presentation (appended to the meeting Report) are on the city website, so you can look and listen at the same time.
The mayor has told Amy that he’s against the moratorium, and he wants instead to proceed with zoning reform. But aldermen in favor of the moratorium including Sangiolo, Vicki Danberg, Brian Yates, and Dick Blazar, make the point that if we wait for Phase 2 of zoning reform, hundreds more houses and much of the character and diversity of income that we’re trying to preserve will be lost in the interim. The Planning Department’s memo (scroll down below the agenda) reports 102 demolitions in FY14, up from 80 in FY13. July’s Newton Historical Commission agenda included 23 requests for full house demolitions.
The map above shows demolition permits issued for Ward 3 from 2005 to mid-2014. You can see the other ward maps in the PowerPoint. This is only the last ten years, so it doesn’t include older teardowns such as the infamous ‘snout houses’ on Tanglewood Road, which were built in the late 1990s. And it only includes permits for full demolition, not partial, so doesn’t fully reflect the loss of naturally affordable housing. (For example, the house on Parmenter Terrace in this video of a few months ago — not a full demolition, but an expansion in at least three directions, left, right, and up! You can see the before & after in the PowerPoint.) The maps show many geographical concentrations of demolition permits, so while Planning seems to not consider .5% of the housing stock being demolished per year to be a problem, residents in the areas of heavy concentration may feel differently.
Ward 8 as you’d expect, has the most (and I think is nearing the point limit for free Google maps). But I’m showing Ward 3 here because it’s my ward, and we’ve got a Ward Alderman election coming up, and I’d like to know which of the four candidates would support a moratorium of a year, or through the end of the aldermanic term (as even those not supporting it have suggested would make sense if they’re going to do it).
Julia Malakie – I can tell from your writing style that you’re a very nice person and I hesitate to parse your words… BUT…. The cheapest houses in Newton are ~$600,000, fully three times what a similar house costs in alternative towns. Affordable Housing has a capital “A” and a capital “H”. Those units are for that young single mother w 3 kids that takes a few college courses while she makes beds as a part time position. They are also for the war vet with the mangled body and mangled mind. It doesn’t feel appropriate for us in Newton to invent terms like “naturally affordable housing”.
In terms of the proposal, nice sentiment, bad policy. The effect of this separates the “haves” from the “have nots” even further. It’s my investment. Newton had a few hundred years to tell me what I can do with it. To say they need another 365 days to make reasonable rules and just admitting they don’t have a clue on how to make rules.
Hoss- A moratorium would temporarily stop the dramatic increase in tear downs of moderately priced houses. We’ve given zoning reform enough time to address this issue and nothing’s happened, other than a significant loss of moderately priced homes, and in the process, a loss of economic diversity in the city. Maybe a moratorium will provide the incentive to get the job done for those who still believe that zoning reform is the more permanent answer. I have no faith in zoning reform at this point.
23 requests for full house demolitions in one month!
I hope that there is a really good examination of the tear downs. Right now any house that is torn down is replaced with a set of townhomes or a mega house. No one builds single family capes or ranches any longer in Newton. We aren’t high earners, and we would either be living in a townhome (which we would not want) or we would not be purchasing a home in Newton. We live in less than 1,100 square feet in our Cape house.
By tearing down more affordable houses, the purchasers will be high earners and our city will become more like Weston.
What Jane said! Amy thinks a moratorium would provide an incentive to get zoning reform Phase 2 done sooner. Vicki Danberg thinks they’ll get more done with a moratorium than without. I agree with both of them. There doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency to zoning reform right now; projections of how long it will take range anywhere from two to five years! Dick Blazar noted how developers are knocking on doors, passing out fliers. He says, aEbout 90 minutes into the meeting, “this used to be called the Garden City. As far as I can see now it’s the Developers’ City. It’s open range out here now.”
That may be fine with some people, but I don’t think it’s what most people want Newton to turn into. I was over on Manor House Road taking a tree picture and commented to a woman walking by with her grandson that the metal tag meant it was a removal, and the first words out of her mouth were, “what bothers me is all these houses that are being built too close together.” That leap sort of made my head spin.
Jane & Julia — If one of those 23 homes in the month was a family trying to settle an estate, does the BoA tell them they need to take a lower price or wait a year until we figure out FAR rules and setbacks? Come on now, these are real dollars for real people. The rich folks with the $2 million+ estate aren’t effected — it’s the rest of us schmucks! Youre closing the opportunity window because the BoA can’t make up a rule!
Hoss – you are correct in saying that what Julia refers to as “naturally affordable housing” is not the same thing as Affordable Housing, and I’m sure she’d agree with you on that. But we need to recognize that when all the $600K houses in Newton disappear, replaced by $1M+ houses/condos, Newton will be a city of mansions and McMansions, dotted with the minimum capital A & H Affordable Housing (including more and more of the dense 40B apartment complexes.) When the middle is gone, we’ll just become another western suburb of the “haves” and the “have-nots”, completely changing the character and culture of the city. And I do understand your point re: a family trying to settle an estate, but how much is that family realistically leaving on the table if a developer can’t do a tear-down?
@Hoss,
From personal experience, I know that the seller does NOT lose any money for selling to a family vs selling to a developer. Both offers usually come at the same amount. But one offer is cash with no inspection and the other is contingent on mortgage and inspection.
The one making the big money is the developer when he sells the new structure, NOT the original owner!
Hi Tricia — First I should not have pegged the naturally affordable label on Julia, I’ve seen others use it, it’s not her term alone. Sorry Julia. To your point about the developer premium, logically in order for the developer to get the house they need to be the highest offer. How much they bake into the offer, I don’t know. If it’s 5% — $30,000 on $600,000 — that’s meaningful to me.
Of the 250 cities and towns in Massachusetts and tens of thousands in America, the BoA can’t model a rule after any one of them?? That tells me there is no rule that will satisfy the masses. If we want a committee to look at every house and make a decision, we can do that too. That’s called a local historic commission.
isabelle — I don’t have first hand knowledge. Do you sell property?
No disrespect to Amy Sangiolo, who always has Newton’s best interests at heart. But this is the worst piece of local legislation I can recall in many years. The consequences will include, foreclosures, bankruptcies, and the loss of hundreds of jobs. Property values will dip across the board, and so will property tax revenue. Seniors who have meticulously planned their retirement years, will be stuck in homes they no longer want, and in many cases can no longer afford. Many houses will fall further into disrepair as homeowners try to wait out the moratorium, and property insurance rates will likely rise for everyone as a result. In short, if you wanted to tank a local economy, this is the way to do it.
Belmont just ended a one year moratorium on teardowns of single-family houses to construct multi-family dwellings while they worked on their zoning regs; they recently approved tighter zoning regs as a result. I’ve tried to find info online as to the impact of that one-year moratorium on all the issues Mike Striar mentions, and am coming up empty. Does anyone have any info from Belmont?
What are the unintended consequences of stifling a free market?
Would a developer invest in a property without knowing what their options will be… in a year? And after the moratoriam year, is it possible that they have to wait another year? Will the new zoning laws be amenable to development at that point? Without knowing those answers it would be quite a crapshoot to invest in Newton residential property.
So the next question is:
What will the effect be on the residential real estate market in Newton if developers are out of the market?
The BOA should post haste get to work on meaningful zoning reform and the Mayor should hold their feet to the fire. Without a moratoriam.
A moratorium doesn’t make much sense to me. If you want to amend the zoning laws, do that. I’d be fine with greater set-backs and restrictions. But some of the houses you are preserving are just 1950s homes on big lots. And there is something to be said for homeowner’s rights.
If the goal is keeping Newton affordable, I don’t think restricting the free market is the best way to do that. Maybe a teardown fee that goes to build new affordable housing?
Very few real homeowners demolish their house and build a new replacement. Most demolitions are done by developers seeking to build the largest possible house or multi-unit on the lot to maximize their personal profit at the expense of neighbors, and everyone in Newton who has to contend with the impacts of higher density and the loss of neighborhood character, greenery and trees.
There is no downside to the moratorium for the community. Permit fees for extensive renovations would replace permit fees for new structures, so the City wouldn’t suffer a permit fees revenue loss. One idea being floated is the owner or developer could still demolish a house (as before) during the moratorium, if the replacement build was not more than 20% larger than the demolished structure. By law, the moratorium has to have clearly defined start and end dates, address specific problems and have a goal of creating measures to remedy those specific problems within the moratorium timeframe.
Fig – I’m all for amending the zoning laws, but it’s simply not happening and no one is pushing to make it happen. At this point, a moratorium seems to be the only way to hold the BOA’s feet to the fire.
Terry – At this point in time, it’s assumed that when a moderately priced house comes on the market, a developer is going to buy it, tear it down, and build a $2m house. The effect of changing the zoning laws? The city maintains its supply of moderately priced houses so that people who represent the full range of economic backgrounds can afford to live here. The last people I’m worried about are the developers – they’re doing just fine.
Jane, I’m not worried about the developers either. I am concerned with the unintended consequences of government screwing with markets.
For example: in my neighborhood there have been four transactions in the last year. One was a developer for demolition and mcmansionization- Named “historic” Hurley Hill in/the Sangiolo powerpoint. (By tbe way I remember when the Hurley’s bought the property, does that make me PREhistoric?), another demolition was a longtime homeowner who had their own reasons, and the other two were regular sales of homeowners to homeowners. If there was a moratoriam I have no doubt that the hill property would sit on the market for the year/or sell very, very low, creating a serious financial crisis for the elderly gentleman (and his family) who needed the money for late in life survival. And you would deny the other family’s demo and improvement of their own property? The other transactions occurred without big, bad developers intruding. A moratorium would have arbitrarily injured at least two of the four parties.
Zoning reform is desperately needed and I believe that the Mayor carries the big stick to make it happen… if he is committed to it
A moratoriam is a mistake.
@Mike. You’re correct about Alderman Sangiolo. She does have Newton’s best interests at heart, and she is responding to the requests of many residents that something be done to stop the wave of demolitions and oversized replacement builds that is destroying Newton’s neighborhoods. Your comments are so often spot on, but in this case, you’ve got it wrong. What data do you have to support your contention that a one year moratorium on demolitions would result in foreclosures, bankruptcies and job losses?
There is nothing about the moratorium that would trap anyone in a house they wanted to sell. There’s no shortage of eager buyers for Newton houses that seniors, heirs or others might wish to sell. Right now those eager buyers can’t compete with developers who can offer a speedy cash sale and no inspection. The developers aren’t offering higher prices for the houses, as that would cut into their profits. They are offering a fast transaction. A temporary demolition moratorium would force developers to look at other ways to make money, such as renovating houses for re-sale, or building replacement houses that are no more than 20% larger than the house they demolish, so that the replacement house would fit into the neighborhood.
Very few real homeowners demolish their house and build a new replacement. Most demolitions are done by developers seeking to build the largest possible house or multi-unit on the lot to maximize their personal profit at the expense of neighbors, and everyone in Newton who has to contend with the impacts of higher density and the loss of neighborhood character, greenery and trees.
There is no downside to the moratorium for the community. Permit fees for extensive renovations would replace permit fees for replacement builds, so the City wouldn’t suffer a permit fees revenue loss. An owner or developer could still demolish a house (as before) during the moratorium, if the replacement build was not more than 20% larger than the demolished structure. By law, the moratorium has to have clearly defined start and end dates, address specific problems and have a goal of creating measures to remedy those specific problems within the moratorium timeframe.
The moratorium would prevent scores of historic and/or naturally affordable houses from being lost forever, preserving our heritage and our economic diversity. At the same time, the moratorium would give the aldermen a powerful deadline and incentive to pass the measures needed to solve the underlying zoning problems that have facilitated the teardown/overbuild phenomenon. We cannot wait up to five years for the zoning reform process to get to this problem. Much of Newton will be transformed for the worse by then. Aldermen Sangiolo, Danberg, Yates, Blazer and others who are supporting the moratorium are showing great courage in putting the interests of residents ahead of the interests of the pro-developer lobby. Please look at Alderman Sangiolo’s presentation here, and hopefully you will be persuaded that the moratorium is a short-term step that we need to fix an urgent problem with long-term consequences.
@Terry Malloy. The moratorium is exactly what we need to hold BOA feet to the fire.
@Peter– We disagree on too many fundamentals to ever see eye-to-eye on this. I think you have a lot of misperceptions built into your arguments, particularly about the real estate market and the construction industry. I also think you’re completely off the mark with your point about maintaining construction permit revenue, when the real impact of this moratorium would be a decrease in property tax revenue. More importantly, your argument for a moratorium disregards the basic rights of homeowners to sell their property for the best price on the open market, at a time of their choosing. You seem to think that can be done without consequence, when in fact the consequences will have a significant and detrimental ripple effect throughout Newton’s housing market. Lastly, why do you feel it’s necessary to impose a moratorium as an incentive for the BoA to pass zoning reforms? I’ve heard others use this logic, which makes absolutely no sense to me.
How about a moratorium on BoA stipends until the rules get updated? Or better yet, $5,000 fines per member for each vote that doesn’t get passed? Seriously, of all the zoning rules for all of the cities and towns nationally, none fit Newton? Bull. The reason none fit is some people don’t like bulldozers period. The BoA needs to make rules even though they won’t be 100% popular.
Peter and isabelle: Do you realize that you both have identical word-for-word content in your comments? That will be one week’s pay please!
(Seriously. A reminder to all, we allow pseudonyms here but only one per customer please. I’m not sure if you are the same person or just drinking from the same fountain.)
Greg. Isabelle and I are two distinctly different people. And it’s not plagiarism if it was us discussing it in the first place… I just missed her post.
Actually Peter, you’re missing my point. You wrote…
And she wrote…
Or maybe it was vice versa.
Terry-Some group will lose no matter what happens – or doesn’t happen. I don’t want anyone to lose and I’m sure no one else does either. In my neighborhood, four moderately priced houses have been demolished in the last 2 years and replaced with $2m homes. Does that change the character of the area? Absolutely. Has it enhanced the area? I don’t see it. When I objected to a demolition at a HC meeting, a developer told me to “get over it”, that the same thing was going to happen to every other house on my street when they were put up for sale. That’s when I say it’s time to stop and think for a bit.
Who’s ultimately responsible for changing the zoning regs? If it’s the BOA, then they need to get moving. If we need a moratorium to make that happen, then so be it. But doing nothing is clearly creating losers and the problem goes well beyond individual owners.
Mike – Belmont went through a 1 yr moratorium on singles replaced with 2 family homes without the wheels completely falling off. In fact even Candace Havens considered it a successful moratorium in order to give their selectmen time to tackle very similar issues to what Newton faces in MR zones. Belmont recognized there was a problem and was willing to act before it was too late. Why can’t Newton do that?
Revenue from new construction runs I’m guessing a few million annually. This is a relatively small fraction of the city’s total revenue, certainly less than 1%, and seemingly worth losing for 1 yr if it means that regulations could be put in place to limit some of the negative consequences of the replacement builds. Maybe your neighborhood isn’t too affected but others have become permanent construction sites as one home after another is torn down. Modest change is good but there are neighborhoods where it’s an ongoing feeding frenzy which is what led to this petition.
Why a moratorium? Because many of these issues have been talked about for years and just get tabled (held) by the BOA. Having a moratorium in place might actually be what is needed to get some serious discussion and action on these issues. These neighborhoods can’t wait 5+ yrs for zoning reform; they need some help now.
Greg, yes I know. We discussed it via email beforehand. Is that illegal?
@Peter: Oh and there I was thinking you were just both WBUR listeners.
I”m catching up after a day at work, so first, Hoss, no need to apologize for “pinning” the term on me. My own term in my head would be “market-affordable” but I’m trying to be consistent with what’s come to be the term. And of course we all know it’s relatively affordable, for Newton. I think Newton has been more expensive to buy into for generations. And while I’m giving credit, let me credit Vicki Danberg for the very apt ‘hemorrhage’ metaphor, which you’ll realize if you listen to the audio.
I also am not convinced developers are paying much more than the person/family that would buy the house to live in long-term. Perhaps for a small house on a very large lot. But for a typical Cape, Colonial, Tudor, whatever, on a standard lot, I’m sure a developer is paying as little as he/she can get away with. With all the letters and flyers going out from real estate agents and developers offering to buy houses “as is”, condition doesn’t matter, we’ll pay cash, there are probably sellers who are just taking the cash and avoiding the hassle, but never find out what a regular buyer would pay.
I recently heard a rather depressing story, which I haven’t had time to track down and am not sure I should try. Guy’s selling his mother’s house, a Cape in West Newton. His girlfriend knows a builder. The builder buys the house; it’s going to be a teardown. Seller’s really happy with the price, tells neighbors. They think he grossly underpriced but don’t want to tell him because it would make him feel bad. It sounded like he didn’t even try to get competing offers from other developers. And do developers even compete against each other for teardowns, or do they just try to be first in with an offer, and move on to another house if they’re going to get into a bidding war? Does anyone know?
And what if there are cases where a developer would pay more? I know we’re the city of Newton entitlement, but are people really entitled to extraordinary profits, beyond ordinary appreciation of real estate, at the cost of losing the character of the city? Aren’t we supposed to be a community, not a collection of 30,000 profit-maximizing economic units? As others (Jerry Reilly and Bob Burke as I recall) have noted in other threads, if it was all about profit-maximization, we’d get rid of zoning altogether and let the free market run rampant.
Greg, as Peter said, we ARE different persons. We had agreed we wanted to write something for a rebuttal to Mike S. Peter did not see that I had sent selected paragraphs earlier. No plagiarism! Just typical email SNAFU on an issue that we both care a lot about.
Regardless of how you count, Zoning Reform is taking a long time: the kick-off for Phase 1 was 2/11/13. In fact,the ZR Task Force (led by Deb Crossley) issued its report recommending that ZR be done much earlier: 12/30/2011. Phase 1, supposed to be done in six months is still not done 18 months later. If Phase 2, supposed to take 2 1/2 years also takes three times as long, that would be 7.5 years. Hence the urgency for a moratorium.
Isabelle — Undoubtedly most teardowns are done by developers. However, by no means all are. In our case, we’d lived in our small house for 17 years before finally knocking it down and building something better. We’d gone back-and-forth for years over whether to move or to renovate and extend; but the constraints of the existing structure were such that we concluded we’d be better off starting from scratch. And why move? We like where we live, and had no desire to lose 5% of the value in real estate commission.
So, your pejorative ‘teardown’ is our forward-looking ‘rebuild’. What you might have seen as a quaint center-entrance colonial, was in reality cramped and had no closets; the basement was damp and unusable; it had state-of-the-ark wiring and plumbing; and our energy bills were simply horrendous. (I was absolutely incredulous when Historic initially deemed it “preferably preserved”; but, hey, they didn’t have to live in it.)
To put a human face on it, our middle daughters no longer have to fight over who gets the bottom bunk, and our youngest no longer has to sleep in either our room or her brother’s.
Sometimes old and small houses are simply that: clapped out and in need of replacement.
@Greg– You’ll be hearing from my agent. I want a new contract. We think I deserve a bonus if blog rookies hit me with the double rebut.
Julia Malakie — Thanks for your thoughts. My chief objection (to the one-year time-out) is using gov’t in a way that impedes our rights. But if there’s a solution, the solution exists somewhere, fully available for a copy and paste. Clearly, the “perfect” solution is not perfect enough to make everyone happy.
I did read through the powerpoint deck. Some of our new terms are rather inventive, in a Newton way. Maybe someone can organize a parade to celebrate Newton’s “Economic Diversity”. It might be a short parade, but who doesn’t support diversity.
I had a lively discussion with some demolition moratorium supporters after the meeting. My main point was that we have to balance the neighbors’ interest in controlling development and density and the individual property owners’ property rights. Some (not all) of them actually disagreed with me that their property rights ends at their property line. I despair because there is no way to argue rationally with someone who is both counting and spending other people’s money and wants the city to tell their neighbors what they can and cannot do with their property.
Vague references to “moderately priced” and “naturally affordable” housing are misleading, so let’s put some numbers up. Check out the planning department’s recent affordable housing presentation, particularly pages 24-30 on the “affordability gap.” Middle income Massachusetts residents can barely afford a median priced condo in Newton, let alone a median priced single family house. When you look at the actual numbers, a household needs to earn over $100,000 a year to afford a median priced condo ($465,000) and over $200,000 to afford a median priced single family home ($884,000). Around 1 in 4 families in Newton and a little over 1 in 20 statewide can afford a median priced single family home in this City. Indeed, a middle income family can barely afford a median priced condo, let alone a “moderately priced” 50+ year old ranch house in need of restoration or an addition to accommodate their needs.
The assertion that a moratorium hurts no one is likewise incorrect. A house is most people’s greatest asset. A senior couple planning for retirement, who have dutifully paid their mortgage for 30 years, suffered losses to their 401Ks and IRAs during downturns in the economy and the stock market, and own a modest sized home on a lot that is worth far more than the house itself cannot reasonably be expected to forgo reaping the rewards of many years of homeownership. It is just common sense, and it is my experience, that developers are willing to pay a premium, and close more quickly than young families looking for “starter” homes. A moratorium IS going to hurt some people who want to fund their retirement with the net proceeds from the sale of their homes if they lose a better offer or have to wait a year or more until the demolition moratorium expires.
Returning to my first point about whose property it is (and whose ox is getting gored), if you want more economic diversity and to preserve modest sized houses–and you own one–when you put your home on the market, sell it at a significant discount from its fair market value to a small non-profit that will create affordable housing. But I promise you that they will want to increase the density on the lot (and may even opt to demolish the existing house) to make it economically feasible to sell a house that someone of modest mean can afford here in Newton. According to HUD, the price that a family of four earning a low to moderate income ($75,300) can afford is $246,900. THAT is a “moderately priced” home, and I will bet you dollars to donuts you won’t find much if anything in Newton for that price outside of a studio or 1 bedroom condo.
Julia Malakie – That story about the cape in West Newton being sold to a developer significantly below market value is true. They sold for 20% below market value. That being said, the house is in such poor condition I don’t think any “normal” buyer would feel comfortable with that purchase.
New construction in established neighborhoods is often considered inappropriate because antiquated municipal approaches fail to discourage bad development (e.g., McMansions built next to bungalows under conventional zoning) and fail to encourage good development principles (e.g., form-based codes). The number of housing units per acre is a separate issue. And, as Robert Welbourn’s comment above illustrates, the age of a structure, along with its energy use and suitability to a 21st century family’s lifestyle, raises additional facets of a larger conversation.
The crux of the argument for a moratorium is simple: too many houses are being torn down. How do we know if that assertion is correct? If, every year, 100 detached single housing units are demolished and replaced, that’s equal to 0.6% of Newton’s estimated stock of 17,367 detached single housing units. For more information, see SELECTED HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS, 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, http://factfinder2.census.gov/.
Zoning reform is needed. The sooner the better. Let’s concentrate on making that happen – and put a moratorium on the moratorium.
Catching up again. @Steve, I assume we’re talking about the same house, but when you say it sold 20% below market value, which ‘market value’ are you speaking of? The market value if the house were in good condition, or the market value in its condition when sold? I can understand why it would sell for less than the same house in good condition (although I go by there once or twice a month and didn’t notice it looking particularly bad on the outside until it changed hands). What I’m wondering is whether the seller even got market value in its actual condition, or just took the offer that fell in his lap, maybe thinking he was making out by avoiding an agent’s commission. Did any other buyers have a chance to make an offer? Did the seller ask a real estate agent, do you think you can do any better than this offer I’ve got from a developer? Or even shop it around to other developers?
If it never went on the open market, it could be a lost opportunity for someone. What you consider a house in poor condition might be someone else’s chance to buy a house in Newton they couldn’t otherwise afford, and fix it up over time.
And even if that house or any house in Newton were in such bad condition that the only thing to do was tear it down and build a new one, and we had a rule that you could only build a house 20% percent bigger than what was there, or 10%, or even the same size, someone would buy it, because people want to live in Newton, and not just people who want to live in big houses. I wouldn’t be living here if all Newton had were big houses, because I don’t need a big house.
@Robert, I appreciate from your description why you wanted a new house. I hope that it is so energy-efficient, and big enough without being so big that it will feel too big when all those kids (4?) move out, that you will enjoy it for many decades to come and have grandkids coming back to visit.
I’ve said this before on another thread, but it’s been a few months: One of the results of turning one small house after another into a big house, it that fewer people will “age in place” to use the current buzz-phrase, like my parents and my friends’ parents did, and more people are going to bail out of Newton when their kids are out of Newton schools, because paying the taxes on those big houses isn’t going to seem worth it anymore. This seems like a recipe for spiraling costs. And there’s a ratchet effect, with house sizes only going up; the additions don’t come off when the family size shrinks, so the supply of houses appealing to single or childless couples shrinks.
For all of those who are concerned about government screwing with the ‘free market’: have you heard of MGL 40B? Does it screw around with rhe free market?
All this conversation and opinion is great, but at the end of the day the city government has been discussing, planning, plotting and reinventing the wheel regarding ‘suitable’ development, ‘appropriate’ affordable housing, community diversity in the broadest sense of the word, historic preservation, conservation, environmental awareness and open space for over 15 years having read the many reports, zoning changes etc etc etc regarding our city scape. In my view, not a whole lot has gotten done. Zoning reform has taken so long already that before anything is decided and implemented another 500 houses will be demolished if we go at our current rate of 100 per year. That doesn’t even count the 500-800 that have been demolished and replaced with egregiously large and often ugly homes that do not fit into the streetscape or neighborhood character of a village AT ALL. Come on over to oak Hill Park, the land of megahouses on anthills now facing away from our historic paths. The comprehensive plan again is a great idea with laudable goals but how long will it take to move anything forward? It seems to me that for all the good intentions, the process needs to move more quickly; not through working harder but smarter. Demolitions, increased density and housing costs, loss of character and green space mean more environmental concerns, less diversity in a community and less historic integrity. I’m wondering which of these agendas is really the most important? Or is it really free market and tax revenue?
When I drive through Waban and see rows of Tudor style homes, I always wonder what developer thought that style fit New England. I hope we’re not asking the BoA to be the style police. Whatever we think is ugly is meaningless to the fact that each of the ugly ones were built to attract buyers. Footprint, height and encroachment on neighbors is something else.
yes, I misspoke; beauty and ugliness are in the eye of the beholder; however consistency in neighborhood character, design, vertical vs horizontal orientation, streetscape, tree canopy and other aspects are what create ‘environment’ that can be attractive to buyers. If Santa Fe NM had not adopted design standards even if it does accept fake stucco to mimic authentic adobe, that lovely town and landscape would be a sea of strip malls and Route 1’s…
It blows my mind the comfort level so many people have with infringing on the rights of others. I’m proud to support freedom in all its forms, including private property rights. However, I do draw a line when the exercise of an individuals’ freedom [in this case the right to do what one wishes with their own home] directly infringes on the the rights of others. In my opinion, displeasing aesthetics may insult someone’s sensibilities, but they are not sufficient cause to restrict a homeowner’s right to sell their home to whoever they wish, nor a buyers right to rebuild that home under currently existing bylaws. What we have here is a number of people who know little or nothing about the real estate market, attempting to “fix” what they perceive as a problem, by infringing on the rights of others, i.e. law abiding, tax paying property owners.
To me, private property rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of others, mainly the rights of the neighbors.
Don’t I have the right to keep the character of the street I chose to move on? Don’t I have the right to keep looking at a certain amount of mature trees? Don’t I have the right to keep open space around each house? Don’t I have the right to a streetscape of houses with about the same low FAR? the same low height?
As far as style, don’t I have the right to look at houses that belong to a (loosely defined) New England style? That New England style so admired by visitors?
We are living in a town, not an island! One’s rights stop when they infringe on other people’s rights. Simple.
No Isabelle, you don’t have any of those rights.
Does a developer have the right to ignore regulations that add to his expenses or lower his profit? Does the developer have the right to ignore regulations that affect the health and safety of neighbors? Both of these scenarios happen all the time in Newton, and that’s one of the reasons we’ve come to the point where people are saying, “Stop!”.
And why is it, Mike, you always assume that you’re the only one who knows anything about real estate development? As it turns out, some people just plain disagree with you. That doesn’t make others wrong and you right. Why is so hard for you to accept that others may simply have a different opinion than yours?
I have to ask: who is making money on these rebuilds/teardowns? Certainly not the homeowners because they will be paid market value for their houses regardless of any circumstances, not some golden windfall people above imply would be killed by a moratorium. However the developer who buys it for 700K then sells a McMansion or a sideways conglomeration for 3M seems to be the real winner. Lojek says the city gets less than 2M total for the expected revenue from all these McBuilds he’s rooting for? That barely makes a dent in the budget – a cynical person might wonder if there are some off shore accounts getting fat. Figure in how many more kids are going to show up at 16K a pop in Newton’s maxed out schools – the math doesn’t look better. A moratorium so the city can buy some time to join the ranks of our neighboring towns and get its act together sounds like a very good idea.
@Jane– In response to your questions…
No a developer does not have a right to ignore any regulations. That’s an enforcement issue, not a zoning issue.
I never assume I’m the only one who understands an issue. Not this one, nor any other. And despite being in the real estate business for 20 years, I readily acknowledge there are people whose wisdom about the industry and regulatory issues far exceeds my own.
Of course I am a believer in the old adage, there are two sides to every story. Making this debate about tear downs, in part dependent on what each of us sees when we look out our kitchen window. I don’t mean to be dismissive of what you see [or feel] when you look out yours. But in this debate or any other, my standard is consistent and clear. I prize individual freedom ahead of government regulation, until and unless a particular freedom directly infringes on the rights of others. As I previously mentioned, I don’t consider [most] displeasing aesthetics to be an infringement on anyone’s rights.
So when I read “isabelle’s” interpretation of property rights [above], I respect her right to have an opinion, but I respectfully disagree with her underlying logic [and yours].
@ Terry. In fact, I do have those rights. On Aug 7, Candace Havens quoted the Comp Plan when she talked about maintaining neighborhood character: that means, low FAR, low setbacks, open space and tree canopy plus style and scale.
She also mentioned the loss of starter homes and the diversity of housing as already in the Comp Plan.
Just because Planning and ISD do not enforce the rights of the neighbors does not mean they do not exist.
Oops, that was also for Mike S., THM and others.
I understand the concerns surrounding the teardowns and the homes, both large and multi family, built to replace them. I haven’t been convinced of how a moratorium on the demolition of single and two-family homes will satisfy those concerns, what it will actually accomplish, or that the motive behind it is to put changes to the zoning regulations on a faster track.
I hope zoning reform in Newton doesn’t try to satisfy Isabel’s “rights” (actually not rights) and doesn’t look like the new bylaw to zoning regulations Belmont recently adopted after their moratorium (which didn’t address McMansions) expired. I’m not sure what some are looking for in zoning reform.
Lisa notes “Demolitions, increased density and housing costs, loss of character and green space mean more environmental concerns, less diversity in a community and less historic integrity.” And “the city government has been discussing, planning, plotting and reinventing the wheel regarding ‘suitable’ development, ‘appropriate’ affordable housing, community diversity in the broadest sense of the word …”
I disagree with most of these concerns. Just picking a few concerns mixed in with housing costs (one of the cited reasons for the moratorium), increased density, loss of character, less diversity along with “suitable” development, “appropriate” Affordable Housing and “diversity … broadest sense of the word” seem to imply other motives. With the lowest figure to purchase $600,000, there is no true economic diversity of homeowners moving to Newton.
It also seems to me that Newton is working on zoning reform with new setback and FAR regulations and adopting MU4.
In addition, after reading the zoning restrictions, in my opinion, one of the major problems is the issuance of many special permits that violate those restrictions and many new McMansions that are not in compliance.
I see no basis for this moratorium.
isabelle — I think you’re mixing law with emotion. Terry was exactly right about your statement. You as a buyer in 1960, 1980, 1990 or 2000 have no extra rights over those that bought in 2014. What you said is rather controlling
Reccomendations are not rights. Would you really want the City of Newton to tell you who you could sell your house to?
@isabelle, um, no.
Julia: I hadn’t heard the phrase “aging in place” before, so I looked it up. I’m not sure how caring for the elderly in their own homes is quite relevant to the discussion, except to say that whether or not you can afford to move into a nursing home may depend on the value of your property.
Property taxes are certainly a relevant consideration, and — who knows? — we may end up somewhere else when all the kids are gone. But that’s a decision for many years in the future, and I can see no merit in the implied argument that we should forgo our new house for the sake of some hypothetical single person or childless couple.
I’d like also to respond to some of Lisa’s points:
The fact is that Newton’s proximity to Boston, Route 128 and the Mass Pike, its excellent schools and well-paid jobs in financial services, tech and medicine, will continue to create financial incentives for the replacement of older, sub-standard houses with larger ones with modern amenities. Developers are simply catering to that market.
So who is making money off this? Yes, of course, the developers are profiting; but I would argue that the home owner who sells to a developer for a teardown is going to make more than they otherwise would, because of the increased demand. And let’s not forget that the developer also has to raise loans, bear the risk that material or labor costs will rise, or that the demand for their product will fall. So it’s not exactly free money.
It’s no surprise that opponents of “McMansionization” are advocating extending the Historic Commission’s power to prolong demolition delays to 18 months, to reset the demolition delay clock when a property changes hands, and to mandate that the homeowner retains possession of the property for a year after the demolition takes place. This would certainly deter developers, who cannot afford to have capital tied up for so long.
My concern with measures such as these, and the proposed demolition moratorium, is that they inequitably deprive homeowners of the value of their property by arbitrarily depressing the market. If the argument is that this is about preserving genuinely historic properties, such as the Wetherell House, then I would by sympathetic; but it seems that what’s really at work is a desire to engage in social engineering by restricting property values. As I’ve said before, an inexpensively constructed, post-war ranch is not exactly a historic building, is it? And yet the NHC routinely votes to deem them “preferably preserved.”
Nor would I concede that larger and more expensive houses necessarily place an increased burden on the city’s school system. We’ve increased the size of our house, but we have exactly the same number of children. Our property taxes will go up for sure! Isn’t that a win for the city? OK, we’re not a statistically significant sample, but I don’t believe that demographics haven’t changed much in the last few years. What we’re seeing is a desire for nicer houses with more modern amenities. (Your definition of “nicer” may vary; I know that stucco-clad snouter homes don’t appeal to everyone.)
(Let’s not conflate mega-projects such as Avalon, Riverside, Austin Street and so on with teardowns/rebuilds. They are not the same thing. Those big projects definitely do have a significant impact on school enrollment.)
I’m not saying that the proponents of the moratorium don’t have valid concerns. But I’m going to save that for another post.
I’ve enjoyed reading all the comments on this post and they have let me see the strong points of each side as well as those who come down somewhere in the middle.
I see some folks taking issue with establishing new Historic Districts and that disturbs me. Some have even called for eliminating the three we already have. Their arguments always focus on the monetary bottom line; improved streets and neighborhoods and a more robust tax base.
I think this argument has a bit of the knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing although that’s probably an unfair overstatement; I think it’s more appropriately a case of failing to see those community and personal values that transcend the monetary cost of something.
Take an example. I think it’s fair to say that most of Upper Falls, as we know it now, would have been long gone if a large part of the village hadn’t been set up as a Historic District more than 30 years ago. The village would have been gentrified in very short ordfer. Now about 5 years ago, Jerry Reilly and his wife Marie Jackson moved into a rather small older house on Spring Street, right in the heart of the Historic District. They readily admit that they would not have been able to afford most of the newer homes in Newton, just as I and most other long time residents, would not be able to afford them. Everyone on this blog is pretty familiar with what Jerry and Marie have done to bring Upper Falls back to life and vibrancy and on some important citywide initiatives as well. In the process, they have drawn many other people into community involvement activities.
How do you measure the value of what Jerry and Marie have accomplished?” You really can’t. It’s priceless in terms of the actual good it produces, the strong community spirit it generates, and the dignity it lends to every resident of this City. This is what my friend and Alderman Brian Yates means when he talks about keeping the villages of Newton alive and he knows what this feeling is because he knows the history of Upper Falls when what Jerry, Marie and others do was a shared community priority. Newton is going to lose its soul and spirit if it turns into just a bedroom community for well to do, but it may only recognize this when it is too late.
Bob Burke — While I do feel that those that want to slow area growth should strongly consider a historic district, the Upper Falls example that you mention has not completely held off the kind of development people have concerns about in this thread. There are a few examples of structures built in back of existing homes that are as big or bigger than the original home. Note two gray townhouses at the corner of Chestnut/Boylston where there was once a single family and note also the “carriage house” built in back of a home near the Catholic church on Elliot where the addition is bigger than the original home. There are also homes that the Historic Commission doesn’t seem to want to save — like the two apartment houses, side by side on High St b/w Summer and Winter.
Just noting that a Historic District doesn’t freeze the scale of the area.
Bob, it is one thing to have a historic district. It is another thing entirely to ban renewal and redevelopment of an entire city. Here is a different perspective based on the experience in Nantucket, when home rule legislation turned the whole island into a landmark district. There may be unintended consequences. Spoilers: you have to be a millionaire to afford a house there now.
Some readers had never heard of “aging in place.” I’d never heard of a “snout house.” This blog turns out to be quite educational. Property rights versus community preservation with an appeal to affordable housing run up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. This is an interesting and necessary public conversation. I hope we as a city get to have it before the McMansions now under construction become historical houses themselves.
Amanda — Maybe in 50 years time, the Newton Historic Commission will be voting to deem stucco-clad “snouter” houses preferably preserved, because they are in keeping with all the other houses in their neighborhoods.
But seriously, if we are genuinely concerned about preserving historic homes, we should tighten up the historic preservation regs, but limit the purview of the NHC to buildings that are actually historic and also worth keeping. Simply saying that a building is old and of a similar character to the houses around it, so it should be preserved, doesn’t seem to me to be a good rationale.
The argument that new construction is too large for the lot or the neighborhood should be handled by zoning rules, like tightening up the FAR, setbacks, and so on.
Preserving historic buildings should not be mixed up with promoting affordable housing. They are different issues.