All 24 seats on Newton’s Board of Alderwhatevers and eight School Committee seats will be up for grabs next Nov. 3. What are the issues you hope our elected leaders and challengers will focus on? Who do you hope will run or be challenged next fall? And if you’re planning a run, are you ready to be the first to declare?
Just 361 days until the next election!
by Greg Reibman | Nov 7, 2014 | Newton | 41 comments
And don’t forget the 36 members of the 4 Area Councils. I am probably going to run again, to get this ball rolling.
Full-day Kindergarten and early-release days.
Newton is far out of step with research on Education, which shows a clear correlation between hours in the classroom and academic achievement. We still have a schedule that is from generations past.
If its not clear, we need fewer early release days, more time in the classroom.
Also, 9 members of the charter review.
A key 2015 issue will be how we fund the next 5 years of CPI and . that in turn will reeguviate the discussion about neighborhood schools and a chicken in every pot
Reeguviate? I am at a loss (and so is Merriam Webster) as to the meaning of that word…although it is somewhat onomatopoetic (mixing sound/images of re-govern, bloviate, rejuvenate, regurgitate and eviscerate!) and should probably be added to the lexicon! Go, Hoss!
Oh, yeah…I’ll probably run for Area Councilor again. The pay is great!!!!!!
So many races! 24 Alderman seats, 8 school committee, and if we’re lucky, we’ll have all 13 villages with 9 area council seats for a total of 149 elected officers in this city. What a democracy. We get what we deserve.
And the voters won’t have a clue beyond one or two Alderman…
Hey, Terry: Why so snarcky? If 117 Newton residents want to volunteer their time and become interested (in groups of 9) in the micro-politics of their respective villages as Area Councilors, why not applaud their singular and time-consuming devotion? Their mission is to energize the uninformed in their communities by bringing them information of immediate interest to them. Among other actions, they have community meetings at which they introduce and interact with the local Aldermen and the residents, alert residents to what’s up at City Hall and the State House that may directly affect them, and educate residents so they better understand complex issues like new water rate structures and 40B’s. These elected representatives don’t get paid and don’t suck any retirement benefits from City coffers. They do get elected by their catchment area registered voters and they volunteer their services to the community.
By the way…within each village with an Area Council, each voter will get to choose 8 School Committee Members, 17 Aldermen (16 At-large and 1 Ward Alderman) and 9 Area Councilors. So only 34 election choices (and a Mayor) will represent each voter, not 147 (plus a Mayor). Newton certainly gets what it deserves, and that is a lot! That’s why we have all chosen to live here!
I hope our elected officials will focus more on slowing down 40B development in Newton, because voters have certainly made their position known. It’s my understanding that the listening skills of some elected officials will quickly be put to the test this coming week, when Marc Laredo and the Land Use Committee vote on a developers request to waive the deed restriction that would enable a massive 40B to be built on Wells Ave. Waiving that deed restriction would be a slap in the face to Newton residents who have now overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to precisely this type of development.
Mike: I’d like believe that voters expressed interest in changing 40B, not breaking the law. Among the questions Land Use and our city’s legal department will be determining if they believe 40B trumps a deed restriction or not.
@Sallee. I couldn’t have said it better than you do. I’ve been on the Highlands Area Council for 3 years and I’ve seen this grass roots organization become ever more involved in issues, attuned to what is possible and not possible, and more sophisticated about the vision we have for this village. The so-called Plan B for Zervas was not in itself an Area Council sponsored proposal, but several of our Council members worked on it, and I know that even those who could not support Plan B acknowledged the level of thought and detail that went into it. I think many were surprised that Plan B authors had the where with all to go toe to toe with most of what the City proposed for Zervas. I think the level of sophistication and insight each of the Council’s possess will almost certainly improve and strengthen during the coming years. The Area Councils are here to stay. Alderman Yates recently stated something to the effect that the City would be wise to listen to what bubbles up from these village institutions. He’s onto something.
@Terry. When do you think we should have the Blog Get Together.
Greg– I didn’t propose breaking any law. I’m an advocate for doing everything we can within the law to slow down large 40B developments. That’s a strategy, not a crime. And unless there’s legal precedent I’m unaware of, the question of whether 40B trumps a deed restriction should be settled by the courts. It should be the City’s position that the deed restriction on Wells Ave prohibits the use of 40B. Let the developer spend the next two years and a few hundred grand trying to prove the City wrong. This is the time and place for elected officials to represent OUR interests, not the interests of well connected developers.
Sallee and Bob- Don’t get defensive! I’m not attacking Area Councils. They’re terrific. The thread was about all the seats that will be up for grabs next election. As I said, there’s the potential for 149 (plus Mayor) elected officials in this city. That’s a lot! No, of course an individual voter doesn’t vote for all of them but we put quite a burden on the voters, who have only so much time and interest. Let’s make it a bit more streamline, some Charter reform could help: Eliminate one At-Large Alderman from each Ward. On a lesser scale, I applaud all those who volunteer in this city and the Area Councils have been great assets to their villages. Do we realy need to elect these volunteers? All the good people who volunteer should have the opportunity. If the Area Councils have nine members, five members or twelve members, so be it. Why eliminate anyone willing to do the work?
Bob, let’s toss out some dates for the Bloggers Night Out… December gets very busy, so shall we try for this month? How about Monday, November 17 or Thursday Nov 20?
@ Terry: Please, not Thursday, Nov 20 (…the first 3 Thursday nights are Highlands, Waban and Upper Falls Area Council meetings!) And Waban Area Council is having an important Visioning Waban Community Collaboration on Nov 20 that you and others might want to attend! Thanks.
@Terry. I didn’t think you were attacking the area councils. This was one of my generic posts. Monday the 17th is great with me.
By the way, Terry: You suggest that the Area Councils shouldn’t be elected. From the short experience that the Area Council has had in Waban, I can attest to the fact that being elected “officials” gives our community outstanding access to information and communication resources useful to our village at City Hall and is even useful in reaching our State legislators effectively!
November 17th is also “World Peace Day”. According to the announcement, “This day encourages us to be kind to others and teachers others to be peaceful”. What better banner than this to bring our often contentious bloggers together for an evening of fun and bonding.
We always put our differences aside (even have a few laughs about them!) on a Blogger’s night.
Isn’t that right, Terry? 😉
Lots of laughs and NO fighting Jane! Except for within the bounds of the mud wrestling pit.
There’ll be a mud wrestling pit this year?! Terry, you’re the best!
What Mike Striar said.
Greg, you are in ABSOLUTELY no position to be talking about what the voters wanted on the 40B ballot question. You didn’t even know what the question was about, remember?
@Paul: Ha ha. I suppose I just have enough faith in my fellow Newtonites to believe that the vast majority of us prefer “instructing” our elected leaders to change laws we don’t like over breaking them.
Also, I should clarify my comments to Mike are not so much about the deed restriction, which as he correctly notes is unresolved, but a position he’s advocated previously suggesting the city should purposefully thwart 40B, which is state law.
He says, that’s not the same as breaking the law. I disagree.
Nor are you. Or anyone else for that matter.
Greg– What specific law are you suggesting that I’ve proposed breaking? All I’ve done is tell people about my experiences as a developer, and give them the truth about how other communities have fought back against my own 40B projects. On the other hand, Mayor Warren has repeatedly suggested there’s nothing he can do to stop 40B. I want people to know that’s a bunch of bull.
@Mike: There is nothing we can do about 40Bs in general, except find a way to meet the threshold, so we’re not hostage to it. That or change the law. The blanket policy that you are advocating is an attempt to thwart the law.
Has anyone considered what will be left for us to argue about when 40B eventually reaches its goal in Newton? Will we all sit together with the gaggles of geese at City Hall at a (permitted) bonfire, singing kumbaya? I hope the next issue (I’m sure there will be one) will have a better label than a number and a letter!
Also, I didn’t realize that bloggers had get-togethers…I thought we all hid behind our keyboards.
@Sallee: Don’t worry we’ll come up with another topic.
Greg– I’m reminded of a mayor from a small city in upstate New York, who defied a court order by instructing his clerk to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples despite state law. He went to prison. The law was changed. We could use a mayor like that in Newton. Please don’t tell me there’s nothing we can do about 40B. The problem is, we’ve had two successive mayors who lack the balls to [physically or metaphorically] lay down in front of the bulldozer.
Really Mike? You want our mayor to choose prison over affordable housing in Newton ( but you say you’re not advocating breaking the law)?
if the speed limit is 55, Newton shouldn’t make up various limits depending on who is driving.
Greg– No. Not for refusing to allow affordable housing. But for refusing to allow the 80% of the apartment units that are NOT affordable, built in contradiction to local zoning regulations, and rented at market rate. That’s the problem with apartment buildings constructed under 40B. A quirk in the law [that applies only to apartments, not condominiums] allows 100% of the units to be labeled as “affordable,” when only 20-25% meet the statutory requirement. I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. But don’t tell me that Wells Ave is about affordable housing. It’s about a well connected developer trying to exploit the 40B statute to enrich themselves.
So Greg, you’re advocating that the city continue to roll over and play dead every time a 40B proposal comes before them?
And no, Mike Striar is not suggesting that the Mayor break the law. He’s rather advocating for the Mayor, City Hall and ZBA to actually stand up for the people and oppose these inappropriately large 40B proposals. How does one do that? By insisting that they are reduced in scope. Furthermore, if the developer responds that a reduced scope makes it unaffordable, don’t just take their word for it, but rather insist that they show you the numbers. For example, when one of the members of the ZBA suggested that Court St be reduced to 26 units, SEB immediately stated that this would make the project uneconomic. Madam chair of the ZBA took that as gospel and effectively overruled other voting members who were asking that she follow procedure and have SEB produce the numbers as proof of this. On Wells Ave she appears to be doing the same, having already halved the amount of money that CC&F are to pay for necessary sewer upgrades.
Actually Peter, you haven’t been paying attention. The city (i.e. the planning department/administration) isn’t supporting the project at Wells Ave.
From the moment this plan became a proposal, Mayor Warren should have invited the developers into his office, and politely let them know that the City of Newton was going to do everything it could, within the law, to stop this project. And if those developers really wanted to build something of this magnitude that does not conform to zoning regulations, the conversation must begin with a proposal that provides 100% mitigation of the educational cost to our school system, associated with their project. For all the good things he’s done, the reality is that Setti Warren is no more skilled in the art of business than his predecessor. Professional developers walk all over him. Consequently, it’s Newton schools that get trampled.
@Mike: You’ve repeated this often and I keep meaning to to ask you this…
How do you know know that the mayor hasn’t called developers into his office or what he may have said or not said to them?
I’m guessing that you two aren’t particularly close and he hasn’t told you directly.
On the other hand, I’ve seen no news reports documenting this.
I haven’t heard any developers talk about it either way.
He hasn’t told me (and frankly I haven’t asked either).
So what makes you the expert on what Mayor Warren has done behind closed doors…or not done?
What’s your source?
Projected schooling impact must be already prepared — the trick is to find out which Executive Session or private meeting with the mayor this was reviewed Good luck with that one…
Actually Greg I have been paying attention. What you say is true that the planning dept is not in favor of Wells Ave, however, it would appear that the ZBA didn’t get the memo, yet.
Fortunately our system of checks and balances allows for committees and commissions to act independently when they choose to do so. In a democracy, that’s a good thing.
Greg– It may be a moot point now. But your question deserves an answer. I don’t know that the Mayor hasn’t sat down with the developers. But I do know that if he did sit down with the developers, he failed to deliver the proper message to them. Had he delivered the message I’ve suggested he should, they would not have made it to Land Use having left substantial mitigation of educational costs out of their proposal.
Here’s the thing, Greg. I don’t claim to be the most knowledgable guy when it comes to 40B. Someone like Ted Hess-Mahan could run circles around me when it comes to understanding the details of that statute. But I’ll put my knowledge from the developer’s perspective up against anyone. The things I’ve learned over the last 28 years as a developer, having successfully gone through the 40B process on multiple occasions, provides me with a great deal of inside knowledge that could be extremely helpful to the city. Not just in terms of slowing down or stopping large 40B apartment projects [that residents clearly do not favor], but more importantly in terms of how the city can strike better business deals with developers. Who would disagree that the city should receive every possible benefit it can from any large scale development? But if the Mayor doesn’t aggressively and relentlessly push for those things, no developer is just going to give them to us.
@Mike: Not sure it’s moot given that we haven’t met our 40B threshold yet.
Meanwhile, it’s irresponsible to state as fact what the mayor — or anyone for that matter — has or hasn’t done behind closed doors unless you can substantiate it.