You can find Newton’s election results by ward/precinct here.
Discuss Tuesday’s election results here
by Greg Reibman | Nov 4, 2014 | Newton | 58 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
You can find Newton’s election results by ward/precinct here.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Martha Coakley has defeated Charlie Baker in Newton by only 6,842 votes (18,950mto 12,018).
I’m not sure that’s the kind of margin she should have expected here.
Question 5 results:
Yes – 14829
No – 9348
Question 6 results:
Yes – 15247
No – 8139
The people have spoken.
Re Question Six: what did we say?
Question 6: 15,247 YES; 8,139 NO. That’s almost a 2-1 margin and I think a pretty accurate reflection of the concern most Newton voters have for development trends and practices. I’m a bit surprised the yes vote was this high, but I think now that the results would have been pretty much the same regardless of how it was worded if the question simply raised concerns about over development. Granted, 7,000 fewer votes were cast on Question 6 than in the Governor’s race, but it was squirreled away on the back side of the ballot and it was clear from where I was standing in line, that most voters I observed had no idea the question was being offered.
Bill Galvin topping all the votes in Newton was also another surprise.
I’m concerned that a Yes vote for the poorly worded questions that included the term 40b will be interpreted as a vote against affordable housing and for all we know, it might have been. The population in Newton has changed dramatically in recent years and it’s become a much wealthier city than it was 33 years ago when we moved here. A school teacher and an engineer no longer have any hopes of buying a house here.
My bet is that most voters walked into the polling place not knowing that Q5 or 6 were on the ballot, so we’ll never know what the vote means. I hope it wasn’t a vote against affordable housing, but I’m not optimistic about that.
Jane. I don’t think it was a vote against affordable housing. I’m almost certain it was driven much more by concerns about over development, monster houses, etc.
Here’s my take on questions 5 & 6, both of which I thought would lose by a large margin.
I don’t think voters understood either question. No. 5 sounds simple enough but it’s easy to vote yes without understanding what it would actually entail–and cost–to hold an election every time the city wants to sell a small parcel of land, and without stopping to think about how few people would really vote. I’m sure there are people who feel passionately about the issue, but that number doesn’t approach 15,000.
Question 6 really surprised me. I thought because it was so complicated, people would vote no. That would have been my inclination. But I don’t think this is about affordable housing as much as it’s about the monster houses. I think that’s what bothers people more than anything else. Most people aren’t upset about business or big housing development unless it has a direct impact on their lives. If they think it will affect their kids’ schooling or traffic or property values, then development is a problem. But the monster houses are having a different impact. Even people who aren’t affected by them seem bothered by them. They are offensive to some people’s ideas of what Newton should be.
Granted, that’s not what the question asked, but tell that to a voter who didn’t even know there were two additional questions on the ballot, has never heard of 40B, and thinks affordable housing means more modest houses.
Where is this “Ward 1, Precinct 4,” where Baker came within 33 votes of Coakley? Remind me to stay the heck away from that neighborhood.
Actually, in Ward 7, Precinct 4, Baker came within FIVE votes. Good for you, self-interested Waban people!
Completely agree with Bob. 40b is a mess and leads to really bad results. Many of us want affordable housing (I certainly couldn’t afford to move to Newton these days), but want a more intelligently crafted way to encourage it.
@Michael – 7-4 is Chestnut Hill
Thanks Chris!
Apologies to the good people of Waban. I always knew you were cool.
Bob-The problem is that we’ll never know what the vote meant because most voters were unaware that the questions were on the ballot and the question was so poorly worded that it left itself open to multiple interpretations. I consider myself an informed voter, and I found out about Q5 and Q6 just the week before the election. Frankly when I first read it, I thought it was an attempt to squash affordable housing and I’m still not sure about its intent.
You’re more trusting than I am-Newton has changed into a very wealthy suburb with virtually no entry level housing. I just don’t see the commitment to economic diversity that used to exist in the city.
As I pointed out on another thread, 40B has created so few affordable housing units in Newton that we could have created more, simply by liberalizing in-law apartment and carriage house conversion ordinances. It’s ridiculous that a developer can skirt local zoning to build a giant apartment in which only 20% of the units meet the “affordable” standard. How stupid is that? We’re allowing hundreds of new market rate units with no local zoning control. That’s what I voted against.
I completely disagree that Q6 had anything to do with so-called monster houses or McMansions. Those are generally a single family home that replaces another single family home, and don’t in any way involve the 40B statute.
Regarding 40B, I would like to point out a race outside of Newton relating to 40B
In the 5th Plymouth District (Norwell, Rockland & Hanover) Republican David DeCoste appears to have pulled out a narrow, 59 vote victory against Rhonda Nyman, a horrible, dreadful, hacked-up, left-wing Democrat.
http://www.votecorevalues.org/home/2014/Mass/HOUSE/Plymouth.html
DeCoste supports efforts by Bob Hedlund to reform 40B so developers can’t use it to bulldoze their way to communities.
DeCoste, Wow, what a peach. Aćtually he supports repealing 40B, but if he can’t wants to gut it.
There are many problems with 40B. It’s been a bonanza for developers, for whom providing affordable housing is (understandably) not a driving cause or even a priority but a means to the end of doing what they do: putting up buildings at a profit. It hands off to the private sector what ought to be more straightforwardly and transparently pursued public policy. And it keeps moving the goalposts, since a target percentage of a constantly increasing number of residential units can never be reached. There may be confusion about the difference between technically “affordable” housing that satisfies the law and commonsense affordable housing (i.e., “a place I could afford to live in”). There may be conflation of discontent over big ugly apartment buildings, which could be traced to 40B, and discontent over big ugly suburban mansions bullying the neighborhood, which have nothing to do with 40B. But all told, a lot of people don’t like what they’re seeing. The ballot questions may have been a very blunt instrument for expressing unhappiness over all these issues, but there they were, and a lot of people grabbed them.
Marine Corps Captain Seth Moulton pulls off a great win in the 6th District making a long needed change on the north shore. He’s a Democrat but the importance of his win is his veteran status. The unsubstantiated rumor is that Seth might be the first combat veteran Congressman from Massachusetts since JFK! Kerry was a Senator, and a quick media check didn’t locate other possibles though its likely there was one in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s before the current crew.
@Jim, Ed Brooke, Leverett Saltonstall, Silvio Conte, Hastings Keith, Brad Morse, Ed Boland (WWII) and John McCormack (WWI) served overseas and were in Congress post-JFK. Whether they saw actual combat, I can’t say. I’m sure I’m missing a few others.
@Jim – Not to be pedantic, but Senators are Congressmen (or women). I think you meant to refer to Representatives.
Michael,
You must be a student in one of our proud schools to make simple-minded statements like these about voting for Baker over Coakley:
“Where is this “Ward 1, Precinct 4,” where Baker came within 33 votes of Coakley? Remind me to stay the heck away from that neighborhood.”
“Good for you, self-interested Waban people!”
Baker was a far superior candidate for an executive office like governor. There are many reasons to prefer him. Coakley is an ideologue and I understand the ideologues that talk on this blog preferring her. But the comments you made sound like you are the self-interested one, i.e., interested in how people like Coakley, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama and others can make peoples lives easier with no effort or work, simply by stealing from those who do work hard in order to succeed in life.
Massachusetts should be grateful to have Baker but left-wing ideology blinds a lot of people here, especially in Newton.
By the way, the totals in Ward 8, Oak Hill, say Baker beat Coakley pretty well there. Must be some awfully selfish people there. Amazing how some people can so easily stereotype.
Jim Cote, as a Marine combat veteran myself I am grossly disappointed in some of Moulton’s stances and could never bring myself to support him. It’s unfortunate as I served with a handful of Marines who know him and insist he is a great guy. I have no doubt he is a better human being than most people in politics, but alas he’s defied his oath to the constitution and supports draconian gun control that even many democrats oppose. Worse yet, he lends false credibility to some of these measures using his background.
I’m sure he’ll do great things for veterans issues, but I hope other Marines and vets can see past his military service and notice that he is not a good choice for liberty.
Mike
Am I the only one who thinks it’s rather insulting/patronizing to suggest that because the vote on a ballot question didn’t turn out the way you expected/hoped, that the voters didn’t understand the question? Anyone who didn’t understand a question probably didn’t vote on it at all, for fear of voting wrong, just as I did not vote in the Register of Probate race because, I’m embarrassed to admit, I forgot to learn anything about that race. There were about 8,000 fewer votes on Questions 5 & 6 than in the governor’s race; those are the people who were surprised by the questions or didn’t understand them (or think non-binding questions are pointless and don’t vote on them on principle).
And Gail, what makes you think the city would hold a special election every time they wanted to sell a small parcel, instead of waiting to piggyback it onto the next citywide election? I think any administration that did that would risk alienating voters and being punished with a No vote by people offended by the inefficiency.
And like Mike Striar, I don’t think Question 6 was interpreted as having anything to do with teardowns and monster replacement houses, much as I don’t like monster houses replacing small ones. Nothing in the language of the question would suggest that.
@Julia: I too, found the inference insulting. Gail, do you really believe Newton voters are not intelligent enough to understand the ballot questions? While admittedly, I believe Question 6 was not well constructed, I don’t believe we should discount, dismiss, or ignore what voters overwhelmingly supported. Newton residents want to have a say on the disposition of city-owned land and they want to allow for more local input in the decision making process of 40B applications. Clearly, residents of Newton are not pleased with the current state of affairs and want to have a stronger voice.
@Amy: No, I believe Question 6 was too poorly written for intelligent Newton voters to understand.
Julia: I don’t think the city would hold a special election every time, but I don’t think it would necessarily piggyback every election either. Whatever administration is in power will time the election strategically to help achieve the outcome desired.
I should have looked at Question 6 again before commenting about monster houses but I stand by my observation that your standard non-wonky Newton person doesn’t understand 40B and doesn’t care about the affordable housing developments unless s/he suspects it will disrupt his or her life. But the monster houses seem to offend almost everyone.
Is it patronizing or insulting to think that voters didn’t understand the question? I don’t think so. It’s not a reflection on voters, it’s a reflection on the question. There’s no way you can convince me that 23,000 people understood Question 6 when people who read it multiple times didn’t understand it.
My husband’s theory is that they passed because “yes” was the first choice.
I agree with you Julia. Newton voters are not stupid and uninformed about 40B and its community impact. Thanks to blog discussion most people know a great deal about it. In Newton the aging baby boomers voted and solidly made their point about out of control development and its impact on safety and traffic in out city.
Colleen, As much as I would like to believe that 23,000 Newton voters read our intellectually stimulating discussions on Village 14, I don’t.
Gail, I never said 23,000 people read the blog. However, any person who wanted to read more about both sides of the issue could goto the blog and read how other people interpret the issue. This alone would stimulate readers to find out more about 40Bs.
I think you under estimate the level of interest in controversial issues which must be dealt with by all of us who live in Newton.
I hope you’re right, but it depends on what one views as controversial, doesn’t it?
It has nothing to do with underestimating voters’ intelligence. If you want a clear message from a ballot question, then you need to write clearly. Poor writing leads to multiple interpretations of the question itself and therefore multiple interpretations of the outcome of the vote. In fact, a good critical reader should have been able to develop at least three possible interpretations of these questions.
I prefer a “monster house” to duplexes or multi-apartment dwellings put up on the same spot. A house usually has a family, maybe 4-5 people in it. Apartments have a lot more, and it’s getting impossible to drive through Newton. Also, nicer and bigger houses bring in people who have more wealth who will spend more money in Newton, which is a good thing.
As an example, I might interpret the previous comment as opposition to affordable housing and in favor of more housing that maintains a level of wealth in the city that eliminates moderately priced or affordable housing. However, Lassy may be a major supporter of affordable housing. On a blog, it’s fine to write quickly, with ambiguity, but if you want the results of a ballot question to have validity, or send a message, then the writing has to be clear, concise, and airtight.
@Julia wrote “Am I the only one who thinks it’s rather insulting/patronizing to suggest that because the vote on a ballot question didn’t turn out the way you expected/hoped, that the voters didn’t understand the question?”
No.
In 2010, 23,579 Newton voters rejected a ballot question that asked for rescinding 40B. 9,117 voters said yes. Yes,there are certainly people who feel differently now. But I do not believe that there are enough who want to send a message or protest the Austin Street project or protest other development to completely flip the percentages.
@Gail: Do you think anyone voting YES on Question 6 thought they were supporting the current implementation of the 40B regulation? Clearly, they think something smells. That is what they said. If they didn’t understand it, they likely didn’t vote on it.
@Gail: Do you think anyone voting YES on Question 5 likes the quiet notices of public meetings in the Tab or at City Hall’s “Please Post” that advertise public meetings to sell our surplus lots (over 7500 sq. ft.)? The voters of Newton don’t like that either! Spreading the word LOUDLY of our public land for sale, especially in a communication age, would also answer their frustration!
@Sallee, I think folks knowing how the current law works could vote yes to support the current law since the words support the use of a Housing Production Plan that accomplish what seems to be the intent of the ballot item 6. Perhaps all can agree that we don’t like being over the barrel on 40B and hopefully, the ballot item was very imprecise in its wording.
I know of many voters who (sorry Greg) don’t know V14 exists, don’t read or participate in conversations on any blogs, don’t know anything about 40B or think it is the statute used to create affordable housing (which they support), didn’t know the state ballot would have 2 additional questions that were just about Newton, and in general conversation think “affordable housing = good and selling public land = bad” so having input is good (and would lead to “yes” votes on both). These are intelligent, educated voters who definitely wanted to have input on who would be elected to public office and who had strong opinions on the state questions., so they voted. And it’s not because they don’t care about Newton, it’s because in their crazy busy lives, they have to prioritize their time and worrying about whether those same elected officials in Newton are doing their jobs is way down at the bottom of the list – unless, of course, it directly effects them.
Question 6. (Some interpretations)
First, quick read at poll, it could seem like
1. Newton would be allowed to have input on aspects of affordable housing here. Sounds good – Yes
2. Or Newton could protect its neighborhoods from the negative impacts of affordable housing. Sounds good – Yes
3. Or Newton would be allowed to deny applications from all 40B developers if they don’t do what we say.
Sounds good if you want to stop affordable housing from being built in Newton – Yes
Sounds bad if you want more affordable housing in Newton – No
And if voters just came to V14 to read about both sides of this question without having researched it before hand, they would find a bunch of people pushing their own interpretations, some who say the question is just confusing and some who push a yes vote just to send a message but not actually saying yes to the question asked.
Both sides of the actual question are hard to dintinquish because it’s all based on interpretation and not on what the question actually asks, which I think is number 3 above.
@Marti: I think it fair, very fair, to say that a yes vote on Question 6 shows some kind of dissatisfaction with the 40B process. It doesn’t say “do away with 40B”. It doesn’t say “we don’t want any more affordable housing”. It doesn’t say anything but, “City Fathers/Mothers, hear our dissatisfaction about how this is playing out”.
The voting outcome implies to me that we need some truly creative thinking on finding a better way to provide and preserve housing that will maintain an economically diverse population in our City. As an aside, I am not convinced, as some are, that higher density is the answer.
Candidates for public office who “blame the voter” when they lose should probably take up another vocation. Saying these ballot initiatives passed because people didn’t understand them is like Coca Cola saying people didn’t buy New Coke because they didn’t understand it.
Just as Coke has to respond to consumers, those in elected office have to respond to voters. And that’s actually a good thing, as there seem to be a dearth of philosopher kings [queens] around.
Mike (not striar) Please note that I prefaced my comment that Moulton is a Democrat, hence not my area of support. In this state though Veteran’s have to make progress at the polls and we couldn’t get Sean Bielat over the top. Many of his views are left but he will be a watch dog for Veterans, and that has been seriously lacking in the current administration.
Point of Information about Sean Bielat.
Bielat lost because he was a horrible candidate. Left-wing Democrats did not like him because he was running as a Republican, Republicans did not trust him because he was a former Democrat from New York. His efforts to please all the people all the time did not work.
http://www.jazzpatriot.com/2010/02/earl-sholley-continues-to-impress.html
I support affordable housing. I also see nothing wrong with someone buying land that had a house on it and tearing it down and building themselves a nicer house. What I don’t like is a single family house being torn down and a duplex or small apartment building being put in its place, or so many apartment complexes being built. It’s to the point that there is constant traffic everywhere in Newton, we don’t have the space for all of the people and drivers that come with all of these apartment complexes. I don’t have children in the schools but it sounds like overcrowding is an issue there, too. People claim that with apartments there are less children or no children, but that’s not true. People will squeeze into an apartment so their children can go to a good school system.
Way off topic, but it amazes me that so many people continue to associate Newton’s traffic problems with overdevelopment. Houses are getting larger and some new units are being added, and 40B and teardowns present many problems, but is traffic one of them? Has the city population increase really been significant enough to explain our traffic jams? Perhaps driving habits and cut-through commuters from other cities are really to blame?
I’m glad questions 5 and 6 aren’t binding.
It just seems logical that when you add huge apartment complexes, such as the Avalon on rt 9 or the Avalon on Needham St, that you are adding more people and therefore more people in cars which leads to traffic. Maybe someone who knows more about this can answer, but on the surface more living units means more people which means more cars.
The ironic truth to the entire 40B issue, is that the fastest and most effective way to never see another 40B in your neighborhood is to encourage their expedited approval until the City reaches its state-mandated “local need threshold,” which is defined as either (A) 10% of all its housing units are affordable; or (B) 1.5% of the City’s land area zoned residential, commercial, or industrial is used by affordable housing units.
According to Newton’s Planning Department:
(A) Newton needs 792 more affordable housing units.
(B) Newton needs less than 10 more acres of “affordable land.”
Given that those goals are readily achievable in the near term (combined, 40B proposals already in the pipeline might actually put Newton above 1.5%), the strategy shouldn’t be to painstakingly lobby against the entire 40B issue via non-binding and hard-to-interpret ballot initiative.
Instead, the City and its citizens should strategically create public-private partnerships with 40B developers, build relationships, and cut deals where the developer has an incentive to make a meaningful and significant investment into the surrounding community as a condition of their approval.
The Wells Avenue proposal strikes me as an excellent example of how 40Bs could be achieved with everyone’s best interest in mind.
— With 334 units on a 6+ acre site, the proposal would eliminate 42% of threshold (A) and contribute over half of the land needed for threshold (B).
— There is not a smaller residential neighborhood that would be “overwhelmed” by the building.
— The developer has offered to entirely reconstruct and reconfigure two major intersections that today are nearly inoperable. Those upgrades will allow for much more commercial development on Wells Ave, which otherwise couldn’t go forward on the basis of traffic conditions.
— Cherry on top is that putting housing next to commercial has proven to draw in large corporate commercial users – something that Wells Avenue hasn’t seen.. ever.
What’s not to like here?
I agree that 40B developments are sometimes implemented in a manner that is undesirable to the community, and that the community’s voice should be heard and considered. However, the fact remains that the Newton will continue to be exposed to 40Bs unless it can usher in affordable housing projects in a responsible fashion.
I don’t disagree on that point Jim, though it still pains me to see a fellow infantryman using his…my background to mislead the public to favor supporting draconian gun control. Its BS plain and simple. I have many veteran friends who were initially supporting him based off his very impressive service record only to have the same reaction I did upon reading further into his positions.
But yes I suppose better him than some other clueless politician lacking life experience outside academia.
Mike
I cross posted this at the Newton TAB Blog:
Emily-Once again, you inaccurately portray the comments of others. I’m certainly not blaming the voters – I’m merely saying that when you write a ballot question that is open to several interpretations and present it to the voters, you can expect voters to interpret the questions differently. When the questions themselves are open to several interpretations, then the meaning of the outcomes are as well. Philosopher kings and queens don’t twist the words of those with whom they disagree.
Newton Corner has a hotel over the Pike. Mike Striar has advocated for developments over the Pike for years. That is one place to consider. Aquinas Junior College is another big site to consider for housing. Those are my suggestions.
However since I come from Toronto where housing growth never ends. I know that housing growth means a need for more roads and public transit. Greater Boston may not be capable of sustaining all this new growth as its infrastructure is not suitable to dramatic renovation.
Great ideas, Colleen. Sincerely. But tell me how to pay for them, and how to persuade the relevant neighborhoods to accept that kind of housing density.
“anyone who voted for Question 6 and says they support the creation of affordable housing, but is also opposed to allowing greater density to achieve the goals of the law, clearly does not understand the economics of creating affordable housing.”
There’s density, and then there is density. I believe most people in Newton favor affordable housing, but don’t want to see Newton become a Somerville or a Brookline in terms of density. I think that is a reasonable, non-selfish point of view.
I think we can make inroads by looking at our accessory apartment restrictions, which Alderman Hess -Mahan and I are working on, and I also think we should be looking at upzoning in our village centers.
But let’s not kid ourselves that we are going magically make Newton affordable for everyone who would want to live here. We are next to Boston and our school system is considered top notch. And that is the case whether 40B exists or not!
Another alternative would be to make area communities more desirable, for example by improving the quality of their school systems. That would lower demand for Newton homes, and thus our property values. Not sure if people would favor that either; after all, the flip side of Newton’s affordability problem is that those who already own property in Newton do pretty well when they sell it.
Eric hit the nail on the head. While we can debate legislative remedies to an imperfect law, what is woefully missing from Newton city government is a proactive plan to meet a pretty reasonable threshold of affordable housing. What I and many others have the most concern about is the powerlessness that we have as a city in determining the best approach. A developer can come in, without any regard for Newton’s needs, and we have little ability to stop it, if it doesn’t make sense.
It would be great if a public-private partnership would lead to a path of 1.5% of land or 10% of housing, thereby stopping unknown and unwanted 40B proposals in the future.
PS If Eric is correct about the proposals in the pipeline exceeding 1.5%, I hope we have some Aldercritters and/or Newton planning department folks watching this closely.
And, again, Emily, we agree more than disagree.
A few years ago, we had an opportunity to use CPA funding for 16 units, including 4 affordable units, on more than an acre of land on Dedham Street which would have been ideal for empty nesters. The developer could easily have gone with 20 through a 40B but was willing to cut the size of the project if he got CPA funds to help subsidize the affordable units. But enough of the aldermen folded like a cheap suit when some neighbors protested to kill the project. The single comment from a member of the public that stood out for me as the most outrageous thing I have heard was comparing this project to the Cabrini Green project in Chicago. For me, that was the nadir. So, instead we ended up with four McMansions on the same site, which will probably end up adding more kids to the Newton public schools than the other project would have.
When this is how developers are treated when they want to do something fairly modest and fully affordable with CPA funding, is it any surprise that developers would prefer to use 40B when they come to Newton?
@Ted: I hear ya. Reminds me of the quote during the Engine 6 discussion from an Waban resident that the project was better suited for Waltham.
To me, the million dollar question is why do we need to continue down this path of in-fill development at every turn? All it does in the long run is add more pressure on already bursting schools, more traffic, and more infrastructure problems. On these three items alone we have already significant challenges in Newton. I can understand modest change (that’s what zoning is supposed to allow) but what we are instead being faced with are cases where a single family home is replaced by 4 or 5 townhouses; 36 units of high density development replacing 2 multi-family homes (Court St); and on the high end 150 or 334 units replacing commercial property. The result being that whole neighborhoods have completely changed over a very short period of time.
@Ted: You said: “The way 40B works is by allowing greater density than local zoning restrictions permit, so that developers can subsidize affordable units with market rate units.”
That reminds me of the peculiar argument that you can make up your financial losses from selling widgets below cost by selling a large enough volume of them.
The subsidization of some units by other units automatically raises the market rate. The developer takes home the same amount of money if he builds a complex with 5 apartments at market rate of $1000/month, and collects $5000/month in rents as he would if one unit is subsidized by the other four to the tune of $400/month, with the “affordable unit” renting for $600 and the other 4 units renting for $1100 apiece. Now the market rate has risen to $1100. He still collects $5000/month in rent and is happy to begin the process again. To his delight and that of other apartment landlords and developers, the market rates have risen through the developer’s actions (and since demand is so high because we are a desirable place to live) and Newton becomes even more unaffordable for the non-subsidized renters who would move here. By the way, the developers don’t subsidize the affordable units with market rate units…the renters of the “market rate” units do.
Do you really want affordable housing here in Newton? Then separate the notion from density. As has been suggested earlier, try converting already existing apartments to 20% affordable ones through attrition over 5 years by offering property tax incentives to the landlords. Phase out the tax incentives after 5 more years. Repeat as necessary to maintain 10% affordable units. Also, allow accessory apartments and their attached houses to be counted by also offering tax incentives to homeowners, based on the square footage of the subsidized unit. That way, if a senior wishes to move into the smaller apartment, the larger house can be rented as affordable housing to a larger family.