Coming just a day after Thanksgiving, today’s Boston Globe’s headline story really rang a bell with me. I think everybody already knows that Boston and MA are extremely high rent city/state and steadily getting worse. I think everyone also knows that homelessness is on the rise. Even so, the series of statistics in the Globe article were startling.
* 10,00 people recently applied for a lottery for 73 housing vouchers
* One in four renters in Mass will spend at least half their household income in rent
* Homeless population is increasing faster than in any other state in the country
* 5000 families in emergency shelters and motels in Mass
* Rate of new housing production is among the lowest in the country
In recent months’, with good reason, there’s been lots of discussion and concerns raised here on Village14, in the Newton Tab and elsewhere about the pace and direction of new development across the city. Even here in Upper Falls, where the Historic District regulations enforce the most restrictive rules on development, there are five houses within a block or two of me being gutted rebuilt/expanded. Elsewhere across the city where bigger developments are being considered – e.g. Austin St, Court St, Turtle Lane, Wells Ave citizens have been very concerned about what each of these projects will do to their neighborhoods.
In general, it’s a good thing that citizens care deeply about the city and maintaining it’s character. Whether we allow more development or less development, it’s a good thing that citizens are very actively involved in trying to steer that ship. Sometimes though it’s too easy to get a bit myopic when thinking about these issues. I know that personally, when thinking about anything going on in my own little neighborhood, the bigger picture and bigger issue can easily recede into the background.
So on the day after Thanksgiving, when confronted by the jaw-dropping statistics above, I’m hoping both I and everyone else in the city can keep in mind the larger crisis in housing when weighing all of our local development issues – everything from specific projects to the kind of development our zoning rules should encourage. Even though no single Newton project is going to make a noticeable dent in any of those statistics, the only way these larger housing issues can begin to be addressed is if all of us, in every town, begin to factor in these issues in every development decision we make.
Jerry so well said. I am supportive of new housing in Newton for many reasons, including Newton having more variety of housing options, something beyond expensive homes and super expensive homes. I like the idea that my children could have options to start their adult lives in Newton if they want WITHOUT them having to move home. Given Newton’s current housing options I don’t think that would be possible. Also what if my own life changed and I was in need of less expensive housing or housing that was wheelchair accessible? I would most likely be forced to leave the commutiy and the schools my children have grown up with before my time. More housing options will make Newton a stronger community that is better able to support its current residents in all stages of their lives.
Exactly. I would especially like to see more accessible housing within easy walking distance of T stops.
Amen, Brother Jerry. Amen.
I agree with everything said.
I think that new development would be more welcome if the infrastructure of each city and town was handled better (including wheelchair accessibility).
If I recall correctly on the recent Kepler Woods special permit application the Aldermen justified increased fees for Sewage etc rather than an increased number of affordable units!
The problem is that there is no “one” solution to deal with the need to address affordable housing. We, as a City, need to embrace multiple strategies to address the issue. If we continue to allow the demolition and replacement of modestly priced homes that are converted to multi-million dollar homes, then what you will end up with is a community described in the Comprehensive Plan – as one that is stratified – housing opportunities for the very rich and those that require subsidies. Do we need to increase our affordable -(at all levels) – YES.
It certainly did not help matters, when the City, shut down discussion of Engine 6. And it certainly doesn’t help matters, as the City turns it’s back on what is happening with the increasing loss of modestly priced homes – homes that aging senior and new, younger families could move into – but can’t, because they can’t compete with developers that offer no inspection in order to close a deal.
It is a terrible state of affairs that we are currently in. We need a multi-pronged approach to address the need for affordable housing – at all income levels. Modest increase in density together with preservation of existing modestly priced homes together with a means to allow older residents to stay in their homes are the only ways to achieve that goal. Moving forward with a pro-active housing production plan – which identifies a real strategy to achieve that goal- is one way to move this forward. Reliance on Comprehensive Permitting (affectionately known as Chapter 40B) doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. Counting non-affordable or market rate units for these large scale projects is just not right.
I would like to associate myself with the comments of my esteemed Ward 4 colleague.
Everyone who is truly interested in meeting regional affordable housing goals should read the Governor Romney’s Chapter 40B Task Force Report to understand how we got where we are. Until the Department of Housing and Community Development adopted significant amendments of the Chapter 40B regulations in 2008, communities that were making substantial progress toward those affordable housing goals were demanding relief from some of the impacts of large residential developments. In response, DHCD adopted regulations giving communities that successfully implemented Housing Production Plans a “safe harbor” from Chapter 40B. In order to address these demands and also encourage affordable rental developments, DHCD also adopted regulations allowing all units to count toward the 10% threshold whenever rental projects were approved under Chapter 40B, without waiting until they were actually built.
The tear down issue is really the tail wagging the dog, Like the severe shortage of affordable housing generally in Newton, tear downs and mansionization are the resulting effect of the obscenely high cost of real estate in Newton not the cause of it. So I wish we could move on to addressing the root problem instead of focusing like lasers on the branches and trying to prune them with a pair of blunt clippers.
We do indeed need a housing production strategy and a plan. But we have to be willing to enact the kind of smart growth reforms that will get us there: substantial incentives for greater density in village centers and a streamlined process for approving residential and mixed use development that will be age friendly and lead to walkable communities, instead of the vehicle centric, 1950s model suburban zoning we currently have that no longer serves Newton well. And I am not sure the people who are against development and 40B are ready for that.
Ted, you’re quoting a republican?? You’ve come along way. lolol
The persistence of the affordable housing shortage in Massachusetts represents a failure of government at the state level. It’s a clear indication that we need more people in state office who can think outside-the-box and possess better problem solving skills. What’s happened here is that state officials chose an ineffective solution that threatens and punishes local communities through the use of 40B, rather than an incentivized solution that sufficiently rewards communities for creating affordable housing. Change the rules–fix the problem!
@Mike Striar – What would that “incentived solution” look like in your view?
Jerry– Clearly it would like this… $. With the delivery method to be determined.
Off the cuff… I would target two problems at the same time. The lack of affordable housing, and burgeoning property taxes. Establish annual affordability goals for cities and towns, as opposed to the illusory 10% called for under 40B. Get everybody on board, residents and elected officials alike. When a community hits their annual target, the state rebates 10% of their residential property taxes, split between taxpayers and municipality.
Jerry and Mike, in the words of HL Mencken, the answer to every complex questions is clear, simple and wrong.
Tom, only Nixon could go to China. The Democrats in the legislature had their chance and didn’t fund the affordable housing initiatives that the task force suggested. Ironically, perhaps only a Yankee Republican like Charlie Baker can solve the housing problem in Massachusetts. I doubt it, but I am willing to give him a chance.
Homelessness and a lack of affordable housing is nonpartisan. The solution can be too.
Mike Striar, How does the state rebate property taxes? If 10% for all is illusionary, how would establishing annual requirements for cities and towns, with the different target amounts defined by ? be less illusionary, in addition to being prinibitorily costly?
Ted H-M, the extremely high attraction to living in Newton, based on many things, among them location x 3, accessibility, and schools, creates demand which influences how much someone is willing to pay to live here, which leads to the higher price of the supply, the “obscenely high price of real estate.” Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. For example, smallish, ranches bought at a modest price years before, Newton’s supply of “modestly priced houses,” are in higher demand now because those with more income are willing to purchase them, pour in more money to tear them down and replace them with much larger houses in order to live in Newton.
So in order to address the root cause of “tear downs and mansionization”, Newton would need to become a less attractive place to live which doesn’t seem like a good approach.
@Marti– Not sure I understand your questions, or the points you’re trying to make. If you’d care to elaborate, I’d be glad to respond.
It’s time to view the issue of affordable housing in the Boston and metro-West area on a broader scale because it’s by no means an issue specific to Newton. The dramatic increase in tear downs in the last few years has provided us with a visible representation of what anyone who keeps tabs on the real estate market has known for years – Newton housing, prices have sky rocketed, as has the price of housing in comparable communities.
Just this week, the Tab listed 22 housing transactions in Newton and four, count ’em four, were under $500,000. A “modestly priced” housing unit in Newton is in the $600,000 range! Sorry guys, but in the real world of an upcoming generation of middle income people looking for a house or condo suitable for a family, that’s not modestly priced – that’s completely out of the range of possibility – even for families that are faring quite nicely economically.
I really believe that most residents want an economically diverse community, but no one can push back the clock or force disparate communities to come together for a common solution to the housing issue or stop greedy developers from offering vulnerable people an “obscene” price for their home that no family can afford. These are forces larger than one community, one municipality, or even one very overpriced region. What’s clearly not helpful is to turn this into a local issue with good guys and bad guys, because that’s not going to get us anywhere.
Marti, housing prices in Newton are not going to fall and the market is not going to be unattractive for all the reason you cite and more. So for the foreseeable future, Newton will become less not more affordable.
So, what do we do to make Newton housing more affordable? Here is my abridged list.
1. Pass zoning that allows for far greater density in village centers. Newton’s zoning is stuck in the 1950s. Seniors and millennials in the 21st century want housing within easy walking distance of everything and that doesn’t rely on a parking space for every inhabitant. It won’t happen unless we make it possible (without Chapter 40B).
2. Stop building schools, and commercial, residential and retail developments that make it easier to drive and park there. If you build it, they will come. Lots of them. All of them in cars, So, just stop it. I mean it. Stop it now.
3. There is a regional need for housing in general and affordable housing in particular. The solution must also be regional. Get on the horn to Mayor Marty Walsh, who has committed major dollars and political capital to meeting the need for housing that is affordable at all income levels. Many hands make light(er) work.
4. Stop pretending homelessness is a purely urban problem. It’s here. Really. Right here in Newton. So do something about it. The corollary, of course, is to stop pretending that housing the homeless is something only Boston and Waltham must do and not Waban.
5. For the love of God, stop holding community meetings where people are asked to put dots on sheets of newsprint and pretending you are building consensus. Just stop it. Because the only things that are getting built are sand castles and ivory towers. Instead, come up with a realistic housing production plan. Just do it. And keep working on improving it until the city reaches its goals.
6. Invest in affordable housing. Why do developers rely on 4oB? Because there is no alternative that provides adequate incentives. Why not leverage sparse public funding by combining Chapter 40B with CDBG, HOME, and CPA funding? Why not indeed. And while you’re at it, push the legislature to fully fund its initiatives like 40R. Nobody gets a free pass. And hold their feet to the fire until they do it.
7. Doing nothing is not an option. Most people who live here now could not afford to buy the house they live in and their children never will. Newton is increasingly becoming a gated city where money is the key to getting in and staying in. We need leadership–united leadership–on this issue, from the Governor on down. And we are not getting it. It’s moving day. Let’s get moving.
I liie Mike’s idea. Give developers incentive’s to build affordable housing, not punishing cities/towns.
@Ted Hess Mahan – LIKE!
I think you can agree or disagree with Ted’s’ specific recommendations but I think his urgency and clarity is exactly what is needed. If not these proposals, then what?
For my money, I agree with all seven of his recommendations.
The status quo is clearly not an option.
I agree with almost everything Ted says, but would reword #2 as “Start building schools, and commercial, residential and retail developments that make it easier to get there by public transit.”
This is not just a quibble over wording. Making it hard to bring a car won’t help if you don’t make it easy to get there by other means. Concentrate new building by D line and commuter rail stops, and make those stops handicapped accessible.
@mgwa, I accept your friendly amendment. You are absolutely correct.
Like on many levels. #7 is critically important. As are 3 and 4.
Affordable Housing – Just Get It Done. Great approach Ted!
The hypothesis that Newton is and will continue to be unaffordable to all but the wealthy has been confirmed. So stop arguing about it. The exceptions include homeowners who bought before the crazy fast leap in housing prices, unparalleled in many great places to live, some renters and condo owners and a few others. Jane’s description of the tear downs being a physical representation of this phenomenon is apt and is brought home by Amy Sangiolo’s ward maps. It seems Newton slept while schools fell apart and became ridiculously overcrowded, developers and other new owners tore down and replaced many homes as prices rose, and zoning reform stalled and will have to play catch up. The only fallacy is many weren’t asleep, but were embracing the new elitist reality in the making and keeping quiet.
I agree wholeheartedly with #1 although the seniors I know will want one car still. You’ll have to pry the steering wheel out of their cold, dead hands.
Definitely agree with #2 as amended and all the rest.
What do folks think of this?
And I agree with increased density in village centers, if it’s done right. I agree with @Marti that seniors will want at least one car, as will most other residents, so we have to provide parking.
I work in the area of sustainable transportation and agree wholeheartedly with the goal of getting people out of their cars, but as @mgwa says, just making it harder to bring a car there is not enough — you also have to provide an alternative option. The commuter rail is good for commuting back and forth to Boston during traditional working hours, it is not much good for anything else.
More than once I have been in a meeting, including with other aldermen, who say “we have to get people out of their cars” and then when I ask how they got to our meeting, they say “I drove.”
I am not interested in judging people, I am interested in being realistic about how people live, and their need for mobility.
Much of what Marti and Emily said. “Just stop it” gets us nowhere. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t exactly get what Ted wants people to do. Storm the State House? Call our Reps and State Senator who already support affordable housing? Call Marty Walsh? (What’s that all about?) Who’s supposed to stop the rise in the cost of real estate in the city and comparable communities that’s at the root of the problem and how is that done? Keep in mind that Amy had what she considered to be one solution to slow the rise in housing costs and for a variety of reasons, the majority of aldermen disagreed. Others are focused on building up village centers, yet it has its detractors as well.
As an aside, I don’t understand why building new schools is part of a discussion of affordable housing. The placement of the schools was determined decades ago and barring the passage of another override, we’re not getting another new one for years to come. If anyone really thinks the city has the political to have another override, then s/he should go at it, but having more schools isn’t going to have an effect on affordable housing in the city.
A lot of us will want a car even if we plan to minimize driving, for the times we do need it. You might find some people willing to do without a car if there’s adequate Zipcar coverage within a block of where they live, but many of us will need a car for at least some of our errands plus visiting friend/relatives who don’t live on the T.
Most of my younger married co-workers are 1 car families if they live on the T, and some co-workers and young relatives are carless if they live in Brookline or Cambridge and have easy Zipcar access.
As to your link, Emily, I can see younger singles being interested in microspaces (I happily lived in a studio right after college). For those of us with adult kids, I think most of us would like to have room for them to visit us – that can mean having a combined 2nd bedroom/study or a 1-bedroom with fold-out couch in the living room, but a studio won’t cut it.
One of the reasons why housing is so expensive is because the carrying costs for housing (particularly property taxes) are so expensive.
@Joshua, um, no. That is exactly backwards.
In 2013, at $11.89/$1000 assessed value, Newton ranked 289 out of 351 cities and towns for residential property tax burden, placing it firmly in the bottom quintile (20%). By contrast, Everett came in No. 1 by a long shot, at $43.04/$1000 assessed value. So the reason residential property taxes are so high in Newton is that residential property values are so high.
@mgwa I hear what you are saying, but to paraphrase a British philosopher, there are tradeoffs. In a community with skyrocketing property values, to achieve affordable, one may have to settle for small. Maybe only young professionals will be willing to live like that, so be it. Or maybe it will be empty-nesters willing to tell their kids to stay in a hotel. Generations ago people lived in much smaller homes and thrived. Even today there is a burgeoning tiny house movement.
Ted, Everett’s commercial tax rate is $43.04/$1,000. Its residential rate is much lower. You made the mistake of a major Apples to Oranges Comparison.
I would like to see how Newton’s weighted average property tax rate (residential & commercial adjusted for any residential exemptions) is relative to other Newton communities. During the 2013 override campaign, many override advocates made misleading remarks when comparing Newton tax rates versus other communities.
Furthermore, as to your point about property values driving tax increases, many communities routinely use reassessment to push up property values in order to thwart Prop 2.5.
Mea culpa, Johsua. I meant to refer to Longmeadow, which has the number 1 residential property rate, at $21.54 per $1,000 in assessed value.
@Emily – I don’t think we disagree. It’s fine if there’s a limited market for them – that’s still a market. I was just laying out what I think that market is – young singles.
And my feelings about having room for visiting kids comes from having a mother in a one bedroom apartment in NYC, where I cannot possibly afford a hotel room! It’s doable (barely), but would be intolerable in a studio.
Reassessments have no impact on a community’s ability to grow the tax base. Prop 2-1/2 limits the revenue growth from the current taxable base (minus new construction and renovations) to 2.5% over the prior year’s revenue. Reassess property values upward and the tax rate must go down to compensate.
Did anyone read the CAN-DO Newletter? In an article entitled, “Challenges Impeding the Creation of Affordable Housing in Newton”, CAN-DO’s Board President, Michelle Hayes, refers to a “Morning Edition” segment dealing affordable housing and quotes DC Housing Authority’s Adrian Todman, “The City keeps losing affordable housing, mostly replaced by high end apartments.” Michelle states: “We see this phenomenon in Newton as CAN-DO struggles to find any competitively priced available housing stock to redevelop for affordable housing housing; while new construction can be seen all over the City. We have been unable to begin a new project, during the past two years, because we are unable to compete with developers creating luxury condominium units which are marketed above three quarters of a million dollars. Properties go on the market and are sold after a bidding war to developerw who can pay cash and accept the properties “as is” with no contingencies. CAN-DO is at a serious disadvantage in the present market.”
Interesting…..
Too bad, some of the affordable housing advocates didn’t raise this issue during our Moratorium discourse…….
Didn’t you raise these issues during your presentation? There was even a photo of a truck with signs about purchasing “as is” properties for cash. So, you’re not an affordable housing advocate?
Amy-That quote hits the nail on the head. Keep the discussion of the effect of tear downs on housing prices in Newton going. It’s an essential part of the conversation. Once single family homes become unaffordable, every other type of housing (condos, rentals) are sure to follow.
Amy/Emily/mgwa – As an alternative to the tiny apartments, I have this pipe dream that a developer or two will read the Not So Big House book series by Sarah Susanka, (or go to her website at http://www.notsobighouse.com/). Whether or not you like the designs, it provides food for thought. We live in a Not So Big house now and it suits our needs perfectly.
@Marti: Sorry – being saracastic. Although, I was disappointed by the negativity that came from some of the Engine 6 folks……
I’m very much in favor of “not so big” houses. I live in 1/2 of a Cape, which was more than adequate for my needs as a single mother with one child and would be very happy to live someplace smaller if it didn’t mean leaving my neighborhood.
Amy-I was an early supporter of Engine 6, assuming it was right next to Waban Village, and that the living space was actually livable. When I saw where it actually was located (one mile from the village) and what we were asking vulnerable people to take on to maintain their daily living, then I looked at it very differently.
How often do you walk a mile to buy your groceries, then walk home carrying the bags? Or walk a mile to the subway so that you can take a 45 minute ride to Boston for the services you need, then walk the mile back home – to your 300 sf “apartment”?
When we provide housing to the most vulnerable members of the community, it’s important to provide – at the very least – space and accommodations that we ourselves can cope with. And I emphasize the word “cope”, because I will admit that I could not cope with situation we were asking of nine men who had been through hell and back in their lives. If Metro West had been willing to provide adequate living spaces for 5 or 6 residents, then it might have been a different conversation. However, when that solution was proposed, the answer I received was that it would not be financially beneficial for Metro West to do so.
@Jane: Sorry – I was referring to some of the negative comments I received from Engine 6 supporters regarding the moratorium proposal…
Got it. Totally with you on that. We need a range of housing options in order to maintain the economic diversity in the city. A city with just $2m homes and affordable housing units is not a solution.
The problem for CAN-DO and other nonprofit developers of affordable housing has little or nothing to do with tear downs, and everything to do with being at a competitive disadvantage in the housing market.
Because nonprofits must rely on public subsidies and multiple sources of funding–and the often prolonged and convoluted process for obtaining funds as well as permitting–they cannot compete with for-profit developers nor with ordinary homebuyers who can commit to obtaining financing (usually in the form of a mortgage) and closing by a date certain. An affordable housing trust fund funded by CPA community housing funds, which the CPA planner presented to the Zoning and Planning Committee last year, would be a huge help to nonprofit developers by allowing them more flexibility to make offers that will be accepted by sellers, and not have to rely on expensive bridge loans, while they are in the process of obtaining public subsidies. But there has been little progress on that front in committee.
There is still the problem of high total development costs to create affordable housing in Newton, which has everything to do with the fact that real estate is expensive in Newton and nothing to do with tear downs. Even the cheapest houses for sale in Newton sell for more than what HUD considers affordable to low to moderate income households. Hence, the reliance on public subsidies to make up the difference between what it costs to buy and rehabilitate exisiting houses or building new ones in Newton. In other words, even if you can buy a house for $300,000, or a condo for that matter, in order to make it affordable to a low to moderate income family, you have to spend well over the purchase price to make it permanently affordable at $200,00-$250,000.
If you look at the communities that have successfully implemented housing production plans, they usually have at least one thing in common: total development costs are far lower because the cost of housing is far lower. That is not to say Newton should not even try. It should. Which is why the city should have backed MetroWest’s proposal for affordable housing for 9 chronically homeless individuals with supportive services at Engine 6. It is condescending and patronizing to suggest that homeless people would rather live in emergency shelters or under bridges rather than walk a mile to buy groceries or a half mile to the Green Line to get where they need to go to get services. Or across the street to Newton-Wellesley Hospital, for that matter.
I wish we would do more to make Newton more welcoming to the lower income who already live here.
I just got a call from a woman who rents an apartment without a driveway. She lives several blocks from the Austin St parking lot and has a toddler so it’s a huge burden to have to park there overnight every night from Nov-April.
It makes no sense to me that we restrict people from parking on the street overnight when there is not one snowflake on the ground.
The kind of people hurt by this policy are the ones we supposedly claim to care about keeping in Newton.
Sorry Amy, I should have known that, but I guess I am confused with your identifying CAN-DO and other nonprofit’s being squeezed out of the market by competition from developers with the moratorium on tear downs. I don’t see any relationship between the two.
Jane, I agree with the quote and your conclusion but not your statement concerning the “effect of tear downs on prices.” Residential prices are skyrocketing because people want to live in Newton and are willing to pay whatever it takes. Teardowns are an effect, not the cause. Newton will have to become an undesirable place to live to keep prices from going up.
As to the Firehouse, it was the “it belongs in Waltham” nimby attitude that was depressing. And while your points are valid Jane, I think it should have gone forward.
Emily, I so agree with you, I wish there was a “love it” button.
One more comment about the parking — the issue of affordable housing, as this thread makes clear, is really hard and really complicated.
The issue of winter overnight parking however, by comparison, is NOT hard, and is NOT complicated.
@Marti – this issue of teardowns is definitely connected to the affordability issue, though I do agree that it’s not the big issue. more of a sideshow.
We bought a house within the Upper Falls historic district five years ago. The only reason that we were able to afford the house is because the historic district regulations effectively prevented it from being town down. As a tear down it definitely would have been worth more money than we paid, as evidenced by the price of tear down properties in surrounding non-protected areas.
Jerry, your interesting, personal anecdote does not suggest a causal relationship between teardowns and the price of residential property increasing, except in the instance of historical designation. The price of the properties is going up because there is a demand for large, expensive homes and the supply can be increased by paying big bucks to build them. If something else is already there then it is in the way. These people are buying lots not homes. Unfortunately most homes aren’t deemed historical. I don’t like this predicament any more than you but so far I don’t see a way to stop it.
I do see applications approved for special permits to violate existing zoning regs for FAR and setbacks to build these huge homes in too small a space every month. Why do they all get approved? With the talk of a moratoriums on teardowns and lagging zoning reform, why don’t we enforce the ones we already have?
@Marti – I agree. Teardowns are not the cause of high home prices in Newton. That’s not what I said or suggested. I said that they they are connected to the larger issue of housing affordability.
The more that the city’s housing regulations – general zoning, FAR, historic, etc make it difficult to replace modest sized and priced houses with much bigger and more expensive houses, the more of these more modest priced houses will remain in the city’s housing stock. Whether that’s a good thing or bad depends on where you’re sitting.
I do agree that regardless of how difficult it is to tear down those more modestly sized and priced houses, Newton will still have to deal with the much larger issue – i.e. that it is steadily and increasingly becoming a place that is only affordable to a narrower and narrower sliver of our most economically well off citizens.
Other than an apocalyptic collapse of the entire regional housing market, the only ways that I can see to avoid throwing in the towel and accepting a new fate as an homogeneously extremely wealthy community is by:
* encouraging development of substantially denser, smaller, cheaper new housing rather than encouraging the same land to be used for fewer, bigger, more expensive houses
* making it easier to add smaller cheaper “in-law” apartments to our existing housing stock.
* encouraging preservation of the existing more modest sized (and priced) housing that we so have
* 40B housing
Even if we do all of that, Newton will still be a very expensive place to live with very high house prices because of the overwhelming market forces you mentioned.
Every one of those items involve contentious tradeoffs. Without them though, our fate is clear – we’ll continue to become a more and more economically homogenous city catering solely to the most wealthy among us. That’s not a fate I’d willingly choose for the city
This has been a great give and take on affordable housing and related issues. It’s missing only one important ingredient. The impact of ever increasing economic inequality and the gross disparity between what people are taking home from work. I run into very few people who have lived here for anytime who could possibly afford to buy the house they are currently living in. I certainly could not.
My street used to include an assorted collection of school teachers, union carpenters and plasterers, owners of very small businesses including carpet cleaners, a stationary store, drug stores and insurance salesmen , a handful of professionals, civil servants etc. These folks are slowly disappearing from our street and they are being replaced by families with two very high income earners. For various reasons, I’m glad that a few of the old time families are gone and I’ve found over the years that friendship and community involvement don’t relate that much to family income. But there is a cumulative effect here. The City’s various plans all stress that they don’t want Newton to become a City with only very high income residents and folks who are near the bottom of the economic ladder; but that’s where we seem to be heading and I’m not certain that all of our local tinkering is going to change things that much. Newton will be a far less robust place if this happens. Something bigger to change this trajectory will have to happen at the state and national level.
The fact that Jerry Reilly and Marie Jackson are living in Upper Falls because they live in a local historic district is reason enough to believe this kind of historical arrangement has a lot to offer.
Steve Siegel, the rampant, bubble-like reappraisal of houses by communities has resulted in a dramatic increase in the property tax levy ceiling, which has paved the way for cities and towns to increase property tax levies by 2.5% annually while keeping the rate under 2.5% as well as future tax increases.
Joshua, I am puzzled by your post. Reappraisals do not impact the ceiling — at most they change the proportion of the total tax levy associated with a specific property. Perhaps I’m missing your point?
MA cities and towns can increase the tax levy up to 2.5% annually without seeking “permission” of the voters. And most if not all do. Whether a municipality gets their increase by reappraisal, change in tax rate, or a combination of both, the bottom line is that most towns increase taxes on the real estate base by 2.5% per year. What do you mean by “rampant, bubble-like reappraisal”?
Just to amplify Steve Seigel’s point, the annual reassessment of real estate values in Newton is required by and performed in accordance with state laws and regulations. The assessed value is based on visits by the assessors to evaluate the condition of the property and comparable sales in the previous year, so it usually lags behind the fair market value (at least in Newton where real estate prices rarely if ever fall).
Steve, it appears that you are very puzzled.
Cities and towns can’t increase the tax levy if the weighted average tax rate is 2.5% (the levy ceiling).
Because cities and towns have been rapidly raising real estate values, that enables communities to raise the basic levy by 2.5% and keep the levy limit from approaching the levy ceiling.
Newton’s population has seen a slight decline since the 1970s, yet the appraised values are at least 20X higher today relative to the 1970s.
Your original post stated that municipalities regularly reappraise to “thwart” Prop 2-1/2. This just isn’t so — to the contrary growing taxes annually just up to the levy ceiling and no further honors Prop 2-1/2.
Now, one can argue that charging a fee for waste pickup without a commensurate reduction in property tax is a way to thwart Pro 2-1/2. But reappraisals? No.
It is clearly stated numerous times in prop 2 1/2 that Reevaluation is not included in new growth. Communities can also raise their levy ceiling up to 2 1/2% annually.
I think prop 2 1/2 is made even more confusing by using 2 1/2% for two limits.
Marti said
These people are buying lots not homes. Unfortunately most homes aren’t deemed historical. I don’t like this predicament any more than you but so far I don’t see a way to stop it.
Jerry said
Without them though, our fate is clear – we’ll continue to become a more and more economically homogenous city catering solely to the most wealthy among us. That’s not a fate I’d willingly choose for the city
This is a blatant form of discrimination against wealthy people. Who are you to determine who should and should not live in Newton? If I substituted “black” or “poor” for “wealthy” in order to blackball them from certain neighborhoods, you’d be appalled. But, to create barriers to prevent wealthy people from moving to Newton is something you consider wonderful.
Everyone admits that Newton is fundamentally an expensive community already, with an average housing cost of over $600K, largely driven by the cost of acreage. So, we are shoveling the proverbial you-know-what against the tide if we try to turn Newton or parts of it into Brockton or Billerica. Better yet, one could buy more than 3000 sq. ft. of beautiful brand new home in places in the mid-west and south for under $300K. That’s what people used to do when they were required to think for themselves, instead of relying upon social engineers, move to areas with low costs and opportunities for jobs. But the fact is that there are plenty of cities and towns in Massachusetts that are already a lot less expensive than Newton, and there are plenty of undeveloped areas in Massachusetts, which Newton lacks, where inexpensive housing could be built.
Why is it our responsibility to hold our city down to satisfy your prejudiced notion on what an ideal place to live is? And on top of that, why should we be taxed to subsidize people living in a town that by all rights they can’t afford?
I waited until I could afford a house in Newton to move here. And I’ll move out when the time comes that I can’t afford it any more. I don’t want assistance.
@Barry Cohen – Whew! Where to begin??
Blackball wealthy people? Who said anything about that? I think we all agree that under any conceivable scenario Newton will continue to be overwhelmingly a home for wealthy people and I haven’t heard me or anyone else suggest otherwise.
“Why is it our responsibility to hold our city down?” I didn’t suggest holding the city down I made suggestions on how to strengthen the city.
You seem to think that one set of zoning regulations that foster large lot, big houses is somehow a fact of nature rather than a series of explicit decisions by our local government to encourage one type of housing development. You seem to think any alternatives or changes to those regulations, that foster anything else, is somehow unnatural social engineering.
I can equally ask you the same question. We both clearly have our visions of an ideals for the city, and apparently they’re quite different. Just as you’re entitled to your “prejudiced notion of what an ideal place to live is”, so am I
Me too. At least we agree on something 😉
The pain I feel for the wealthy among us…
Jerry,
You’ve pretty much misinterpreted the things I said, about which you chose to comment.
“We both clearly have our visions of an ideals for the city, and apparently they’re quite different. Just as you’re entitled to your “prejudiced notion of what an ideal place to live is”, so am I”
I don’t have any vision of what Newton SHOULD be. I’m a realist. I know what Newton IS. Newton is attractive for many reasons, and that has driven up the cost of land, which is why our houses have high values, not the cost of construction. Developers can’t make money putting up inexpensive homes on expensive pieces of land. They’ll be too expensive to sell. So, there’s a natural trend towards putting up high value construction on this high value land. I don’t advocate large lots, and Newton certainly doesn’t have them. Look at Dover or Carlisle or other expensive suburbs.
You and others here seem to want to inhibit this natural trend of Newton to evolve into a city with a lot of bigger housing than it now has, because you personally don’t like it, and perhaps personally resent the people who can afford them.
I’m not rich, and I’ll be very happy when I sell my house eventually and can get a good price for it. Your philosophy will interfere with this. I know people who specifically looked for these developers as buyers because they didn’t have to go through the agony of fixing up all the problems that arise in a house over many years and are put off. And they don’t have to sit around waiting for the ideal buyer for the particular house they have. They are selling a lot and the buyer tears down the house, putting up a better house that adds to the tax base. And, if these people are really wealthy, they probably send their kids to expensive private schools and don’t tax the city budget.
@Barry Cohen – Newton is and was one thing and is rapidly becoming something different. Since I was a kid many years ago, Newton has always been a relatively affluent town. There’s nothing new there. While overall it has always been affluent, within the city there was always a wide range of housing and incomes.
What’s been changing markedly in recent years is that the bottom end of the housing stock is being rapidly replaced by housing stock aimed at the highest end of the income ladder.
Yes, all of this has been driven by rapidly rising real estate prices.
Where you and I disagree is about “this natural trend of Newton to evolve into a city with a lot of bigger housing”. There’s nothing inherently “natural” about it. What gets built when land prices goes up is inextricably tied to zoning and housing regulations. So yes, under the existing set of man made regulations, the “natural trend” will be to replace small houses with big houses, and drive the city into being a much more homogeneously affluent city
If you think that’s a good thing, and many do, then those regulations are just fine as is – but that’s a choice based on a vision of what you’d like to see for the city.
Under different zoning and housing regulations, rising land prices will lead to more, smaller, higher density cheaper new housing being built as well. House sellers would get even higher prices in those cases.
The clearest example of that dynamic is 40B housing. In general, under normal zoning, its nearly impossible to build high density (i.e. apartment buildings) in Newton. If it were developers would be falling all over themselves pay even higher prices for property, to knock down houses to do it, since it would be far more profitable than building single big houses.
The only apartments that do get built are 40B (friendly or otherwise). The big financial incentive that the state dangles in front of 40B developers is “we’ll force the city to ignore most of its normal zoning rules that prohibit high density housing”. That’s worth more to the developer than the added cost of paying to subsidize a fraction of the apartments.
The system we have now is ad hoc and broken and there’s nothing remotely “natural” about it. The city zoning regulations incentives developers to replace all smaller low end housing with bigger high end housing and then the state 40B regulations incentives developers to occasionally short circuit the zoning regulations with the opposite incentives and leaves Newton completely out of the decision making.
If the city, as part of its own zoning regulations, recognized the value of maintaining a mix of housing options (in law apartments, higher density housing in appropriate locations, etc) then we have a shot at least maintaining at least some of the economic diversity that the city has always enjoyed while also giving the city the ability to control where and when that high density building happens.
Without that, the trajectory for the city seems pretty clear. We’ll continue to become a more and more economically homogenous city, with only those at the very top of the economic scale living here … and the only exceptions to that will be the small number of folks living in the subsidized units of large 40B projects that get dropped in the middle of it all, wherever the developers choose to put them.
There’s nothing “natural” about that.
Can I get another “Amen” for Brother Jerry?
Ted,
No “amens” from me. Jerry jumps around in his logic. He admits that the only way to get high density housing into Newton is subsidized 40B housing which you love. But, I said that I don’t think it’s right to subsidize people with our tax money to live in a place that inherently they don’t fit into. People like you and Jerry love to use other people’s money, against their wills, to accomplish the objectives you hold dear of “diversity” or “economic justice” or whatever.
The current zoning laws were not designed to create the situation you don’t like. They were created, as in most cases, to distinguish types of areas, like residential, commercial and industrial, since most people don’t want like a factory next door to their homes. And certain distances were required from the house to the boundaries to leave yards with grass and shrubs, unlike urban environments.
It’s the economics that drive the teardown movement, all within the constraints of a decent zoning requirement.
Answer please my point about why Newton needs to be forced to have low end housing when there are so many less expensive towns around here, and where there is much more develop-able land in other towns. Why do you need to force people into Newton, to satisfy your moral compass, your soul that strives to strike out any semblance of inequality in the world? Do it on your own nickel. Don’t use my tax money to satisfy your feelings of guilt.
@Barry Cohen – Please go back and re-read what I wrote above.
No where did I say anything remotely like
in fact I said exactly the opposite.
Changes in zoning regulations to allow thoughtful higher density housing where appropriate is not “using other people’s money”.
After recovering from my crying jag for the wealthy that are being “blackballed,” overcoming my usual rule of not feeding the trolls, and counting to 100,000 to try to remain civil, I am jumping in here.
Barry, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts disagrees with you so all of your ranting about the undesirable, lower/middle income earners not deserving to live in Newton is moot. Run for state office if you don’t like it but please stop spouting your political nonsense just to vent. There’s a response to your point. Because the law says so.
Or, better yet, since you’ll “be very happy when you sell your house and can get a good price for it,” what better time than now? I hear housing prices are really high. Of course, it’s the ones you are name calling who voted against a moratorium on teardowns because it would be thwarting the rights of the homeowner to be able to get top dollar for their properties.
The “predicament” I don’t like is building large homes on lots that are too small by using convoluted designs just to make them fit. They encroach on their neighbors, destroy a streetscape, bulldoze trees and require special permits to flout the zoning regs we do have. I don’t know why the special permits always seem to be approved.
I also don’t like the predicament that leads to Newton being a home for just the wealthy and the poor, while forcing out the middle. I’m not feeling guilty or wanting to force a new morality on Newton. I believe Newton is a better place to live because of the economic diversity it presently has, evidently including you, and would like to keep it that way.
And just to be clear, nothing stops “the wealthy” from living in the homes that are already here., so your comparison to black balling black or the poor is ludicrous. But I’m really curious about all the “barriers to prevent wealthy people from” doing most anything.
Jerry,
Maybe in the jumble of a lot of your talk about 40B housing and knowing Ted’s infatuation for it, I misunderstood some of what you wrote. Sorry, if I did.
Newton hasn’t always been so diverse. If you imagine Newton without all the post-Depression-era housing, which may exist because people who had estates needed money and sold off land for development, you’ll see that Newton was pretty ritzy. Some areas, perhaps Nonantum, always had lower cost housing and were populated by immigrants.
So, the diversity you like is a recent thing in Newton’s more than 300 year history, and it came about because of economics, probably, and the current situation is somewhat of a reversal, back to Newton’s roots. There are too many houses and house lots in Newton now to return to the estates of Newton in the 19th century. But the economic factors that made Newton ritzy still exist and Newton will attract wealthier people who want to live in a nice community in proximity to their jobs and businesses in Boston, like physicians, attorneys, investment bankers, etc.
@Barry,
I think it’s time for me to check out of this conversation but not before correcting your imaginary history.
For all of Newton’s history it has been an overall affluent town with plenty of economic diversity within it. If you want to roll back the clock “pre-depression” as you suggested, you’d see manufacturing centers in Upper Falls, Nonantum, and Lower Falls full of factory workers.
My whole neighborhood is mostly mill housing from the 1800’s built for those mill workers.
Here’s another little tidbit I stumbled over about a year ago
Go back earlier than that, before the railroads, and you’re back before most of those grand estates were built and the city, aside from the mills, was largely small farms.
There has NEVER been a time in the city’s history where it was overwhelmingly just wealthy people who lived here and it wouldn’t be a fate I would willingly choose for the future.
Jerry,
I live in Newton Centre. It’s my impression that this part of Newton was large estates. I think the south side, where there was a big post-1950’s development, was farm land. Other parts, like Lower Falls or Nonantum or Auburndale, probably were not in the estate category. But the teardown development I see mostly is in Newton Centre and along Commonwealth Ave. heading towards West Newton Hill, all of which was pretty high end housing years ago.
Again, I think it’s a good thing, raising the overall value of the city. Others can disagree. I mainly don’t like people like Ted advocating using tax money to create housing for people who can’t afford Newton, where even the land is exorbitantly expensive before you even build something on it, and who could live fine in other cities and towns in Massachusetts.
Sure, there are plenty of beautiful victorians in Newton Centre that have stood for over a century, but there are plenty of counter examples, too. As I recall being told by a historian, right in the heart of Newton Centre, at Langley and Union, was a block of some of the first Italian immigrant homes in Newton. Four corners was a working-class Irish neighborhood and some of those remaining homes are now the target of a 40B proposal.
Jerry has studied Newton history more than most. Jerry, do you have any copies of the handbook left to sell to Barry?
Isn’t it better for the city, tax base etc if older, falling apart homes get replaced with newer, nicer ones? They are worth more, probably run more efficiently, and families with more money are good to have in Newton – those are the people who eat out more at our restaurants and buy more at boutiques, or expensive stores. I don’t see any problem with an older, outdated home being replaced with a nice, new, state of the art home.
Adam,
As I said, I don’t much care what developers do. If they want to put low cost housing in parts of Newton it’s fine. I just don’t think we should use reverse-snob zoning to discriminate against wealthy people, nor do I think we should use our tax money to subsidize people to live here who otherwise can’t because we have Ted’s feeling of guilt. That’s it. Debating Newton’s history is irrelevant. None of the development you and Jerry are talking about was done for the sake of bleeding-heart liberalism. It just made economic sense at the time.
Thanks for the plug Adam. An aside worth mentioning … I was selling those Kings Handbook of Newton last year as a fundraiser for the rebuilding of the Emerson Playground in Upper Falls.
The ribbon was just cut on the newly rebuilt Emerson Playground on Tuesday and from all the kids who were climbing all over it, I think it’s a hit. Special thanks go to Carol Schein and Newton Parks & Rec for spotting and applying for a very specific state grant that ended up contributing the major chunk of the necessary funding.
Overheard among all the celebration was Parks & Rec commissioner Bob DeRubeis talking to Upper Falls CDC chairman Jack Neville. It sounds like next up is the basketball court. The neighborhood CDC is going to pay for new baskets/backstops and Parks & Rec will fill and reseal the court – more good news for neighborhood kids
…. and yes there are still more copies of the Kings Handbook of Newton available.
Barry Cohen said:
Tell that to Waban, the member of the Nipmuc tribe who greeted Rev. John Eliot when he came to Nonantum. If he had known what the Puritans had in mind for him and his people, perhaps he would have adopted a permanent moratorium on demolitions and tree removal.
Barry Cohen also said:
Yes. You did say that. And those people who you don’t think fit into our community include many of our children who were born and grew up here and simply cannot afford to buy or even rent homes of their own in the city where they have lived all their lives. Nice.
As the old Negro Spiritual goes, all God’s children got wings so they can fly on home. Amen. At least, as long as home isn’t Barry Cohen’s Newton.
@Barry. You could have said “can’t afford” instead of “don’t fit into” which implies that someone with a limited income would have difficulty interacting with neighbors who are well to do. “Don’t fit in” carries some horrible racial and ethnic stereotypes which I know you do not share, but I do think you feel that there’s a legitimate economic barrier to fitting in. “They don’t fit in” or something to that effect was used by some of the more crusty old Yankees to describe their feelings about Irish and Italians moving into our City and I heard more than a bit of it when Jews began moving into Newton in large numbers after World War 2. And I also used to hear the occasional snide remark (from my scoutmaster for one) that Jews and some Catholics weren’t wholly loyal Americans because of their allegiance to either Israel or the Vatican. This was just a variation on the kind of trash about other ethnic, economic and religious groups that’s been circulating in America since the No Nothings. It’s the kind of thing that has a substantial part of one political party believing that Obama is either a Moslem or was born in Kenya. I’m afraid stuff like this will always be with us in one form or another. It’s fear driven.
And no Barry, you are anything but a bigot, but your description about how you think people with low and moderate incomes behave in the greater society and your reluctance to have government give them a helping hand is kind of disturbing, none the less.
Ted said,
“And those people who you don’t think fit into our community include many of our children who were born and grew up here and simply cannot afford to buy or even rent homes of their own in the city where they have lived all their lives. Nice.”
Really? Is it our job to assure that no matter where people grew up, we need to subsidize them to remain there regardless of the cost? This is insane. Had someone grown up in a penthouse apartment in New York worth tens of millions of dollars, but didn’t earn enough himself to afford to live there, should we subsidize him? And, in case you don’t realize it, to many in this world, simply living in an average home in Newton looks the same. Trust me. I really do know that.
And BOB,
“And no Barry, you are anything but a bigot, but your description about how you think people with low and moderate incomes behave in the greater society and your reluctance to have government give them a helping hand is kind of disturbing, none the less.”
Same message to you. The government isn’t in charge of our lives, or shouldn’t be. Why doesn’t anyone here address what I said about simply finding areas which lower income people can afford, either in Massachusetts or elsewhere in the US, instead of wasting taxpayer money subsidizing people in a high land cost place like Newton. No… instead you cast aspersions at me, as if I’m some kind of evil cold-hearted troll. To people like you and Ted, the government is just some constantly accessible treasure-house of money, there for the taking for anything you think justifies it. Don’t even think of alternative measures. Just dish out more and more of someone else’s money for your perceived problems.