While the City of Newton is expected to appeal a state ruling disputing claims of having reached the 40B threshold, the Town of Needham has found a different way to keep developers from using the affordable housing law to build projects at unsuitable locations, the Needham Times reports.
The project would add 400 units to the town’s affordable housing stock, increasing it to include more than 11 percent of all housing in town. This would satisfy the 10-percent state requirement and exempt Needham from the state’s 40B law, which allows developers who plan to include a percentage of affordable units in their multi-family housing plans to bypass local zoning bylaws.
… “We’re supporting this,” [Selectman Chair John] Bulian said about the 40B proposal. “We think this is a good project for the business center.”
Need anyone be reminded that building workforce housing inside an office park is exactly what the Wells Ave. project that was rejected by the city and the board of aldermen was also all about?
Touché. But remind me, Greg, did the Wells Avenue project come anywhere close to putting Newton over this threshold? And was it accompanied by massive influx of business tax revenue? If Newton’s other scheme holds, the incentive to avoid 40B’s is gone. The calculus is quite a bit different for Needham.
@Adam: The Wells Ave project would have brought us 135 units closer and certainly closer on the 1.5 percent threshold if it turns out we come up just short there. As for your question, Needham firmly believes that workforce housing is key to attracting businesses there which certainly increases tax revenue. Paul McMorrow firmly believes that too. And it is certainly a top concern (second only to transit improvements) when I talk to companies.
All those folks who worry about Rowe Street, Court Street and every other project that directly abuts residential lots should have been lining up to support Wells Ave. Never understood why they didn’t.
And the reality is, we may still get that project but without the $1 million plus Cabot Cabot & Forbes was offering to give the city to improve traffic signals, add sidewalks and bike lanes and make other improvements — similar to what Needham will be doing at Needham Crossing.
Interestingly, Needham is working closely and cooperatively with Normandy on this project, which is the same developer that is doing Riverside Station. Meanwhile, I just heard Newton will be losing another successful startup, Big Belly Solar, to Needham, as well.
Reaching the 10% threshold is easier for some communities than others based on a multitude of factors, including the type of existing housing units, the amount of undeveloped land, etc. None of these factors are favorable to Newton. For our city to reach 10% we’d have to do it with large apartment buildings, which is somewhat akin to shooting ourselves in the foot to spite our face.
I know that public opinion, including those opinions expressed on this blog, had absolutely, positively nothing [haha] to do with the Mayor’s change of religion when it comes to inoculating our community from 40B. But Mayor Warren now has to recognize that he’s in effect declared war on these large scale 40B developers, and in war you don’t fraternize with the enemy. He should pay back that Dinosaur of a developer who sued the City over Rowe Street, by dumping them from the Austin Street project. You sue us? We screw you! That’s the way to fight this war. Although Bruce Springsteen put it better…
“Well we made a promise we swore we’d always remember
No retreat, baby, no surrender
Like soldiers in the winter’s night with a vow to defend
No retreat, baby, no surrender”
Sorry, Greg, it’s not the same discussion. I think if you look at the map you will see that we are comparing apples and oranges. Why? It’s the same reason that Add-A-Lane benefits Needham and Wellesley and puts a burden on Newton. The prime land that Needham is so generously developing is separated from its current populace and long time developed neighborhoods by the Rt128/I95 corridor. The eastern side of this industrial office park abuts the Charles River and empties onto roadways that lead into Newton as well as Needham. And what does Needham care about the clogging of Highland Avenue going east over the river onto Newton’s Needham St.? (Now we know why they will get 2 lanes going into Newton, while Newton will only get 1 lane going out.) And what does Needham care about the clogging of Kendrick Street as its traffic pours onto Nahanton street in Newton?The New England Business Park owners want their business tenants’ employees and residential renters to have easy access to both municipalities! Newtonites can sit in the traffic.There will now be two housing developments in this industrial park, the proposed one on General Dynamics property on A Street and, right around the corner, Charles River Landing on 2nd Avenue, described in their words as ” Stunning luxury apartments and premier amenities make Charles River Landing apartments in Needham a resident favorite. Located on the bank of the Charles River in the New England Business Center, Charles River Landing boasts an ideal location with easy access to the scenic waterfront. Our residents enjoy being just steps from bistro dining and diverse boutiques.” Note that the rents listed are $2384-$5000/month for 792 to 1588 square foot 1 and 2 bedroom units and that there is no public transit that serves the people who live there. And how many residents of the subsidized units are able to shop at the bistros and boutiques? To get to a supermarket, they need a car. It is a large-business, isolated, car-centric world that the renters are moving into. They are not likely to be a community in Needham any more than people moving into Wells Avenue would have become a community in Newton.
Wow Sallee, where to begin? A few points, for now.
Needham does and has to care about traffic on adjoining streets, including Kendrick Street (which is in Needham so I’m puzzled by your comment). If the streets are clogged, no one is going to want to live/set up shop here.
The two lanes vs. one lane along the bridge has to with the width of the Needham Street prior to the bridge. But even if it didn’t, I don’t get your point. Won’t a majority of people who go over a bridge one way come back over the same bridge the other way at some point? So really how much difference does it make?
Newton retailers and restaurants don’t check IDs and only serve Newton residents; they will welcome Needham’s new employees and residents. Meanwhile Newton is losing out on similar business tax revenue by not taking full advantage of Wells Ave.’s potential by also locating workforce housing there.
Charles River Landing is a 40B, very much along the lines of the Wells Ave project. It too could boast easy access to the scenic conservation land/waterfront. Plus Wells Ave was going to offer residents a shuttle bus to the T.
Just because the community that could be created along Wells Ave. would be different from a Newton village community, that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a real community that’s valued by the people who would live, work, learn and play there.
It’s possible to argue that Wells Ave, as proposed was too large. But as far as I can tell, the aldermen or city, never tried to negotiate a smaller project there. Now it’s possible the city will get the big project anyway, but without the benefits of $1 million in improvements.
Wasnt their a deed restriction on Wells Ave?
They call me a bomb-thrower in Needham, so I feel compelled to respond. Greg, we’ve been down this road before, metaphorically speaking. but if Newton were revitalizing the Wells Office Park to include massive new office space and housing were part of the plan, maybe I could see your point. Wells Ave may have some of the same potential as the Needham property you mention, but it’s more established as well as more isolated. Also, it’s not safe to assume that traffic patterns are symmetrical, especially with the poor level of service predicted on Needham Street even after the proposed improvements. The design of the bridge suggests that it won’t be. Queueing will occur one one side of the town line or the other, depending on the configuration. MassDOT suddenly shifted the design, mostly based on some highly questionable queuing predictions, and perhaps a phone call or two.
@Greg:
1.) My point is that Kendrick won’t be clogged…it will have the new Kendrick Street interchange built with umpti-million Federal and State tax dollars to clear the New England Business Park at closing time, while Newton will have the burden of added traffic leaving Route 128 and cutting through Newton’s residential neighborhoods.
2.) Two lanes in and one lane out certainly has to do with the width of the bridge over the Charles. But, it could be one lane in, two lanes out. Or it could be reversible during certain hours, but that’s not the plan, is it? And no…your argument that the majority of people who go over a bridge one way come back over the same bridge is not defensible here. New England Business Park employees can sweep through Newton to Route 9 on Needham Street at closing time, but can zap down Route 9 or the Pike to 128 and then take the feeder lanes to Kendrick and the Business Park the next morning! Sweet for Needham; not so sweet for Newton.
3.) Yes, Charles River Landing is a 40B. But there is no nearby neighborhood on whom it has any impact. That industrial park is isolated from everything by Route 128 and the Charles River. And while it still has easy ingress and egress onto Highland Avenue and Kendrick St. that will soon be enhanced by the new Kendrick St. intersection at 128 and the revamping by MassDOT on Highland Avenue, Wells Avenue is, and will long remain, a traffic engineer’s nightmare.
4.) Remember, Greg, Newton is comprised of 13 Villages, (our blog’s being Numero 14). A dense apartment building in the middle of a business park doesn’t seem to characterize a village to me. Where are the schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, etc.?
Sallee:
Look these up on Google Maps …. Mount Ida College, The Mass School of Professional Psychology, Solomon Schedter School, Excel Gymnastics, The Jewish Community Center, Cabot Pond, Culter Park Reservation, Nahanton Park, Russian Mathematics School, Good Shepard Community Care, Dance Fever Studio, The Ballroom Dance studio and a new day care center next to 35 Wells Ave whose name I can’t recall.
Really, Greg? Public schools? Public playgrounds? Churches? Synagogues? None of these institutions are there! It’s a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there!
Really Sallee? No offense, but just because you don’t want to live there doesn’t mean others don’t. And no offense either but not everyone goes to a church or synagogue either.
You’re 100 percent right however in that it be unattractive to public school families, but that’s a plus right? And that may eliminate the need for public playgrounds too.
But if you’re single or a young couple that loves to walk your dog, go on canoe trips, bike trips, take hikes in along miles of conservation land, you’ll be in heaven. And if you’re young and early in your career, all you may have time for is working (walk or bike thanks, because that’s why you chose this location: it’s right near your new tech job) and then maybe (gasp, instead of going to church) hanging around the pool on weekends.
I’d rather be boogy-ing in Boston or watching a live Red Sox game or, gasp, visiting a museum, than shut in my office park without a car and lounging round a pool for the five minutes that New England would let me do that! Ha!
I’m off for the night now!
I am still pretty new here (1 1/2 years in Newton, after TX, TN, AL, UT, AZ, IN). Can someone please explain to me why integrating subsidized housing throughout the villages, or adding it wherever new or existing residents could enjoy the advantages of good schools, safe communities, public transportation, and other Newton amenities, is resisted so strongly?
I don’t understand it.
It is so expensive to live here. My housing cost alone is literally three times that in the last three places I’ve lived, and my home is not as nice. But, we can afford it. I shudder to think of people moving into the area for jobs, as we did, or trying to remain in the area, for jobs or family, who are trying to make it here on less.
Would the people who do seem to want lower-income housing in town prefer to have trailer parks in certain parts of town, with underperforming schools, poor food options, and surrounded by pawn and payday lenders, where working folks are forced to find housing that they can afford, as in many, many other places in the country?
It appears to be pure snobbery, or racism, on the surface.
I’d love to hear a reasoned explanation. NIMBY doesn’t count.
Oops!
*Do NOT want, 4th paragraph, above
@Carry– You are misinterpreting the opposition. It has nothing to do with affordable housing. Many people don’t like large, out-of-scale apartment buildings in Newton, or the impact of those apartment buildings on our schools.
Glad to hear that! The articles/ commentary I have read haven’t given an explanation.
So, what has been proposed by the populace as workable alternatives to high-density low income housing?
Personally, I think we should be using our existing housing stock to create more affordable housing in Newton. There are a number of different ways to do that. From my own experience renovating an old carriage house on my property, I would say that zoning regulations should be changed to make permits for secondary residences less cumbersome and costly to obtain.
In my neighborhood (Auburndale/West Newton area) there are several mixed income developments (generally townhouse condo style) with anywhere from 10-20 or so units, as well as one all-affordable development with 10 single family houses. While I’m sure there was *some* level of resistance to all of these, as there will always be to any development with higher density than what was there before – just like there will always be people who oppose any affordable housing – it was overcome and these developments are just part of the fabric of the neighborhood. Now take the example of the 70 Rowe St. 40b proposal for a 135-unit apartment building (20 or so units would be affordable) abutting a neighborhood of single and two-family homes. I *guarantee* you that the opposition would be just as fierce if the proposal was for 135 market-rate units. (There is also a 20-unit, mixed income development less than 50 yards from this site that’s been part of the neighborhood for almost 20 years.)
@ Carry. One reason people are against additional housing, affordable or not, is that commercial property is taxed at twice the rate of a residential property. For instance, 70 Rowe st, assessed at $3, 226,700, is taxed $22.38 for each 1,000 of its assessed value. Residential buildings in that spot would bring less tax revenue to the city AND huge traffic, school and neighborhood character problems.