Why is the administration enabling any high-density luxury housing projects when residents in village after village are fighting them? Since Newton has surpassed its obligations under state law, we no longer have to accept such projects under the guise of “affordable housing” and we can blame ourselves if we reelect those who do. It’s time to assist our seniors and other Newton residents who struggle with housing affordability. They don’t qualify for subsidized units in these complexes and many can’t afford the market rates.
Kouril Grieser’s column provides an interesting contrast to the previous week’s TAB column by Rev. Howard M. Haywood. Like Kouril Grieser, I believe Haywood also lives in Ward 2 (too bad Shapiro didn’t invite Haywood on his show). You’ll need to read his full column so you will understand the context, but here’s an excerpt…
I write through the lens of a black man and it is not my intention to paint the city as bigoted. But when I hear the term “changing the character of the neighborhood” used in current discussions about urgently needed affordable housing, I mournfully recall Mayor Childs’s notion of selfishness and his observation about “the character of the people being more important than the type of housing.” I have participated in decades of meetings about affordable housing and regrettably a tone of selfishness is still very much evident in the debate.
40B New York City style
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/nyregion/in-program-to-spur-affordable-housing-100-million-penthouse-gets-95-tax-cut.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Moth-Visible&module=inside-nyt-region®ion=inside-nyt-region&WT.nav=inside-nyt-region
The affordable housing debate says that Newton has its head on straight about the necessity of keeping affordable housing out of the grips of profiteering development interests and politically ambitious monument builders, who are intent on demolishing what remains of our affordable middle class housing stock in an effort to urbanize and densify the city into an unrecognizable and less desirable place to live.
What pisses me off about affordable housing (and I am for it) is when Developers use the 40B law to hi-jack the city. I think Goddard st is an example of a developer who proposed something, didn’t get it passed and cameback with a larger 40B project. I’d like to see that end. Not called for.
Communities can be pissed off or they can be motivated to find their own more palatable ways to increase their affordable housing stock so as not to be held hostage to developers.
Doesn’t surpassing the 1.5% (at 1.88%) threshold say that Newton has accommodated the states snob requirement and beyond? As long as we keep above the threshold why do we need more? How are a neighbors doing?
Newton needs to concentrate on preserving what is left of what the middle class middle can afford – IE stop the tears downs and McMansionization.
I think saying you view things through the lens of a black man is an odd way to say you don’t intend to paint the city as bigoted.
The “changing the character of the neighborhood” that’s I’m worried about, and that most people I know are worried about, is watching the 1,500 and 2,000 sq ft houses get replaced, via teardowns and mega-additions, by upwards from 3,500 sq ft houses, and formerly middle income two-families being replaced by strings of luxury townhouses. So how would Rev. Haywood stereotype me? Am I bigoted against rich people? I don’t think so. I’ve got friends who are pretty well off. I just wish rich people would buy the big houses that already exist (as my friends actually have, come to think of it), and that they and the developers would leave the smaller ones alone, so we don’t turn into a city where all the moderate income people are herded into apartment buildings and condos because there are no small houses left.
I hope implying that people who oppose 80- or 135- or 334-unit edifices are selfish is not intended to silence opposition. From my observation, the affordable components are the only aspect people actually support, so it’s not about the people who will be moving into the affordable units. It’s about the density, it’s about being able to find a parking place without driving around in circles (above ground or underground), and it’s about not making traffic any worse than it already is.
There are some more “palatable” ways expressed by homeowners living in some of the more “naturally affordable” neighborhoods that still exist in Newton posted on the last 40B thread. . People in West Newton, Auburndale, OHP and around Court Street in Newtonville. I don’t know Kouril Geiser’s motives but these people and more are not talking about the “character” Rev Haywood is addressing, although I am sure that attitude exists in Newton. They are talking about the small/smaller homes that the town sees no reason to keep around and get a bum rap for not being good enough for various reasons, but are actually great places to live. There is no reason for lower/middle income makers to have to live in new apartments that are a tiny part of large, luxury apartment buildings. One thing Kouril Geiser has right is that many seniors living in Newton won’t qualify for the affordable apartments and won’t be able to afford the luxury ones so saying 40B or other such developments are desirable for seniors downsizing is mostly wrong.
It says 2 out of 3 voting folks (and probably more, if you include those who did not vote), want to have a direct voice into these big decisions as the city disposes its land OR aims for increasing the affordable housing stock beyond the mandate.
I personally take an exception to the core theme that Newton values children of residents rather than transplants (like me). I believe I add same to the community, and volunteer as much as those who grew here.
Sam S,
“I personally take an exception to the core theme that Newton values children of residents rather than transplants (like me).”
That’s not what is going on. Newton has a budget. Let’s say to optimally educate each and every student the city needs to spend $10,000 for it’s estimated 10,000 students. Once the city carries 10,001 students it takes away the quality of education the city gives. So, this isn’t a debate between not carrying more kids in the system, it’s a debate on preserving the quality of education. The same holds true for traffic and parking, etc. This isn’t us vs them mentality, it’s preserving what so many before us have worked to give us.
Boy, what a great, big Mischpoca *this* topic is.
@Christopher: My limited Yiddish rises to question your comment. Mishpocha means family. So you said: “What a great big family this topic is.”
I have heard the word mishpocha used many times in the following way: “He brought the whole mishpocha with him.” (Meaning, he brought his spouse, kids, parents, in-laws, cousins and aunts. Kind of like Sir Joseph Porter in Gilbert and Sullivan’s Pinafore.)
What were you trying to say? Maybe we can come up with a more appropriate Yiddish term!
Sally –
I’ve always heard it used in the sense of family, sure, but as in “one great, big mess.” Fondly and with a bit of humor, now.
So much mishegas!
Right on, Terry, Old Boy! Mishegas is the noun for mish-ug-eh or mishugeneh which means “nuts” or “crazy”. You would say: “What a mishugeneh thing to do. The whole mishagas (craziness) about not vaccinating your kid against measles is based on faulty science.”
I don’t mean to start a new thread here, just translating as best I can.
I agree, the discussions on this have been a big, farshtunkeneh mess.
Opposing large, dense apartment buildings with “expensive affordable” units (are you famisht yet?) supposedly for people that need them but can’t afford them sounds to me like fodder for a Jackie Mason joke. (something that starts with “have you ever hoid of an affordable apartment that only rich people can afford? Sure, you can afford the apartment…problem is you can’t afford the heat, electric, food…I got enough money to last me the rest of my life unless I buy an affordable apartment in Newton!”)
FYI: A Yiddish Lesson:
Farshtunkeneh = stinking
Famisht = confused
But, we have sunk into humor and have lost the perspective of the dialogue.
@Greg: Next time you raise this topic, try not to demonize. Others may not agree with you, but if you let them, they can make cogent and convincing arguments that have value and they should be allowed to be heard and they should be respected, not vilified, for their thinking. Many of the comments below your observations in your thread express similar thoughts to Kathleen Kouril- Grieser. There are obviously many people who agree with her. And to answer your initial juxtaposition of her words in the Tab with Reverend Haywood’s, I do not believe that she is a racist. Nor did Rev. Haywood call anyone racist. The subject is sensitive and difficult and that is why intelligent people need to listen to each other and not dismiss opposing opinions as worthless.