Waban resident and journalist Lauren Paul wrote a story in the March issue of Boston Magazine about Newton’s recent challenges with affordable housing developments, focusing on Engine 6 and Waban in particular.
The subhead for the article reads:
Well-heeled progressives champion liberal ideals, including housing the homeless. Just don’t try it in their neighborhood.
This is such a cheap shot at Newton that I had a hard time reading it without getting angry. The author clearly doesn’t understand [or mention] that Newton has met it’s legal obligation under 40B. Newton is an exceptionally generous and welcoming community that doesn’t deserve this kind of slander.
It seems that the article is factual. I did not think that Engine 6 fell under the 40 B rule. And had 40 B quota been filled when this project was being discussed?
I thought it was a very well written and factual account of the whole Engine 6 fiasco.
Mike Striar: “Newton is an exceptionally generous and welcoming community…”
The very small percentage of Newton residents whom I know personally do in fact happen to be generous and welcoming (most of them, anyway). I’m honestly curious, though: in what tangible, housing-related ways do you feel that the city of Newton, as a community, has shown itself to be generous to and welcoming of those who cannot afford the housing currently available in Newton? How, in other words, have we put our collective money where our mouth is?
JenAK-I’ve found the schools to be welcoming and generous to families that struggle to stay in the city – and it is a struggle for many. While the schools can’t pay for housing, the system does provide for a range of services for students and families who would otherwise not be able to receive them, scholarships so that all students have an opportunity to participate in activities and sports, and often help out families in need in a variety of ways. In addition, the city has shown a commitment to keeping the local food pantries well stocked. Several faith communities, the FUSN in West Newton and the UPA in Auburndale in particular, are committed to issues of social justice and donate as much as possible to a number of organizations. Of course, these efforts are confidential so much of what happens in the city is not publicized.
These are just some of the ways that the community is generous and welcoming. While I agree with you that it’s troubling to many people that Newton is losing its economic diversity, I don’t see a lack of generosity.
My wife and I didn’t move here until the end of 2013 so we were basically unaware of this. I never knew that Mayor Warren was so spineless! Bummer. Based on this article and a reading of the V14 articles from the time, he certainly won’t get my vote.
Could this have been in a more innocuous location? Sorry to burst these people’s delusions of Eden, but the firehouse is surrounded by a monstrous interstate highway interchange replete with rest-stop concessionaires, an aesthetically-challenged hospital complex, and an incredibly dangerous raceway filled with cheapskates looking to avoid paying a $1.25 toll.
@Mike Striar & Jane – the article agreed with you that Newton is a generous community “Newton is a reliable redoubt of philanthropy”. I think that was the whole point of the story.
Newton residents are indeed very generous with their time and/or money, but whenever low income housing of any sort is proposed in Newton (since I’ve been here) there’s always substantial neighborhood pushback, and Engine 6 was just the more extreme example of that.
Every time it happens there are a whole host of issues that are raised, everything from parking, density, scale, neighborhood character, increased school population …. the upshot of it all though, is that in a town that in principle strongly supports affordable housing, in practice it’s nearly impossible to build. The few units that do get built only happen due to the dreaded 40B program, since neighbors have far less opportunity to stop them.
An articulate, well researched, factual article illustrating a decision our mayor should be ashamed of. It had nothing to do with 40B. It had only to do with Mayor Warren making a indefensible decision influenced by a small number of residents and then doubling down. It made me angry too but for a different reason from the one expressed by Mike Striar.
Michael – I was totally on board with the Engine 6 project and went to a meeting in support of it. Initially, it was reported to be “next to” the village commercial area, but in fact it’s a mile away. That means that every single time the residents needed to buy groceries (rain, snow, cold – think about the last month), they would have had to walk a mile to and from the Waban Market, and and 2 miles whenever they needed access to a pharmacy.
But my greatest concern was the inadequate size of the apartments. I looked at the blueprint of the plan and saw that one “apartment” was 270 SF, and most were in the 300 SF range. A typical studio apartment is 500 sf, and none of the single occupancy apartments in the E6 came anywhere close to that. So I had the bright idea of calling one of the major proponents of E6 to suggest that MetroWest decrease the number of apartments so each one would be a more livable space, perhaps decrease the number of residents to 5 rather than 9. I was told that was not possible because the project would not be profitable for the developer if the number of apartments was decreased. I was stunned. This was a learning experience for everyone involved, and a much more complex issue than meets the eye.
I don’t read Boston Magazine so I haven’t read the article, but I do know that the Boston media in general takes great joy at poking fun at Newton. Long time residents are kind of used to it at this point.
@Jane – there’s a link to the article above (“Boston Magazine”) if you do want to read it.
Thanks, Jerry, but I cancelled my subscription to the Globe 4 years ago after being a lifelong reader, and stopped reading the local media once I realized the stories were all fed to reporters from individuals with particular vantage point.
I’ve gone back to primary sources for my information. When I wanted to find out about E6, I dug into MetroWest’s plans for the building and the budget, measured the distance from E6 to essential services, and came to conclusions on my own.
Jane, I would never deny (and did not, in fact, deny) that Newton is home to many generous people who extend a lot of helping hands to people who live here and elsewhere. That’s one of the things I like most about living here.
My question, though, specifically addressed housing: How has the city of Newton, *as a community* – and perhaps I wasn’t clear that by *as a community* I mean *through the actions of the officials its residents have elected, thereby lending them the responsibility of disbursing its residents’ collective financial resources* – expressed that generosity in the form of finding a way to attract or otherwise provide housing that will allow lower-income residents to move (or, of course, remain) here? How are we – again, in a corporate and institutional way – acting to protect our economic diversity, if that is in fact among our many priorities? (I’m not asking rhetorically as a way to imply that I believe nothing has been done by the city of Newton to expand our affordable housing stock, as I do not know that to be the case – I’d be happy to hear of examples to the contrary!)
[I apologize for my verbal convolutions; I’ve been re-reading The Turn Of The Screw ahead of taking in the Newton Nomadic Theater’s current production, and Henry James always makes me wordy.]
Jane, was the opposition to the project really due to residents’ concern for the comfort and convenience of the Engine 6 residents? It seems to me that a hotel-room sized apartment would be quite a godsend for someone who theretofore had no home. And it’s less than 0.3 miles to the Green Line at Waban. Most people would characterize that as quite swell, in terms of accessibility.
The implication of the article, which I suspect was true, was that the opposition at its core was due to concerns over property values. But that particular corner of Waban really isn’t in a position to complain, having gotten a multi-million-dollar noise barrier put up especially for them – that alone probably inflated home values about 50 percent higher than they should have been.
And as I pointed out in terms of its surroundings (the Interstate, a sprawl of hospital buildings, and the speeding toll evaders of Route 16), the quality-of-life couldn’t exactly be characterized as pastoral. If a prospective homebuyer charmed by the nominal 02468 zip code was able to overlook those little annoyances then I doubt that they had enough awareness to be bothered by seven little affordable housing units. In the end, the impact on home values should have been negligible.
And as for parents’ concerns about the safety of their children walking around the neighborhood, again I hate to burst their delusion of Eden, but anybody letting little kids walk or ride their bikes on that particular corner ought to have their head examined. The cars peel off Route 16 onto Beacon at about 60 mph, making a game of how they can maintain momentum from the 128 onramp.
Michael – I was just expressing why I personally changed my position from one of active support to thinking E6 just wasn’t a very good project. I didn’t see 300 SF as being adequate space just so a developer could make more money. In my mind, a more respectful approach would have been to provide what most of us would consider a livable environment by expanding each apartment by decreasing the number of residents from 9 to 5 or so. I’d go bananas in 270-320 SF, and I felt that the city could do better by these 9 men. Frankly, I didn’t follow the story very closely after coming to my own conclusions for myself.
JAK – I didn’t mean to imply that you were saying that the community didn’t do good things for others. I just thought I’d highlight some of what goes on quietly. I really meant no offense. The media doesn’t report good news, so we’re not likely to hear about affordable housing units being built unless there’s opposition. As an example, in my time at Burr School, several affordable housing projects were built with no opposition so they didn’t make the TAB, and several more have been built since I left, also with no opposition or mention in the media. In my previous home in Newton, I lived within a block of two group homes that no one objected to and once again, there was never an article in any paper about them when they were set up.
Good lord. I started reading this Boston Magazine article, but Lauren Paul lost any credibility for me when she said:
Hello? Jane Swift was shoved aside by Mitt Romney when she was acting governor, expecting to run for election in her own right.
I just googled 2012 Mass Senate election, and the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012#Candidates_2 has a handy table of dates candidates withdrew and how they were polling, which confirms my recollection. Setti Warren was one of many candidates, polling behind not just Elizabeth Warren, but Alan Khazei, Tom Conroy, Marisa DeFranco and Bob Massie the week Elizabeth Warren got into the race. The next week, in a poll just before he withdrew, he, Khazei and Massie were all at 3%, behind Conroy at 5% and DeFranco at 4%, and Warren at 36%. Those other candidates, and a couple of others, stayed in the race longer, DeFranco staying in until she was eliminated at the convention. Implying that Setti Warren would have been the Democratic nominee but for Elizabeth Warren is rather presumptuous, and characterizing her getting into the race as ‘pushing aside’ anyone is unfair to her. It was anyone’s race to get into. No one had any right to expect an unobstructed path to the nomination.
@Jane – I can only speak for the last 5 or 6 years I’ve lived in Newton. During that time, as far as I know, there has been very little affordable housing built and i dont know of ANY project that was built that didnt have significant opposition.
Just this morning the Newton Tab has an article about the opposition to a project on Goddard Rd for 5 units with two of them affordable.. It’s facing significant opposition from both neighbors and the city.
The city’s most significant recent effort on the,affordable housing front is to try to wriggle out from the state’s 40B obligations with a somewhat dubious, contested claim that we,have already built enough affordable housing. Much of the citizenry, here on V14,and elsewhere have,been cheering on that effort.
I don’t see much evidence of any corresponding alternative effort to build affordable housing by any other means than 40B.
I think Lauren Paul’s article got it right about our attitude towards affordable housing – i.e. we talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.
There’s a side of this that I haven’t heard discussed, and I’m confused by the terminology. Is a shelter for the chronically homeless considered Affordable Housing? Are they treated in the same way by the state formulas? If treated the same then a choice must be made. So the question: “What is preferable-should Newton use the CDBG money for the Pine street Inn project or for affordable family units?
Jerry – The fact is that 15% of NPS students qualify for free or reduced lunch and they’re living somewhere in the city. These people don’t have to declare their economic status to you, me, the Tab, or anyone else. This is a very private issue and one that’s accorded the highest degree of confidentiality in the schools.
I hear more concern about the tear downs of moderately priced houses that are replaced by $2m McMansions than opposition to affordable housing.
Terry, the MetroWest/Pine Street Inn proposal was for affordable housing units with supportive services for formerly homeless individuals, not a shelter. The city’s Consolidated Plan specifically identified the need for such housing.
The Engine 6 example is classic NIMBYism and I remember being very surprised when the mayor withdrew the proposal without continuing the public discussion. It was noted at the time that listening to the few loud voices and letting them make decisions for the many softer ones was not the way to conduct city government. I think here was something about the number of e-mails to the mayor. (I think the psychiatrist who works with the homeless and went on record saying that learning from his experiences with the homeless, he has no hope for their rehabilitation, is not in the right profession.)
Questioning the validity of Mayor Warren being a “favorite” and being “shoved aside” by Elizabeth Warren is hardly reason to “doubt Ms Paul’s integrity.” And I see nothing “unfair” in saying Elizabeth Warren “shoved aside” her opponents except a more accurate phrase might be she bulldozed them. I like the image of Senator Warren pushing and shoving her way through Congress.
The article was not “poking fun” at Newton, but it would be necessary to read the article to know that. Unfortunately commenting defensively with indignation about articles without reading them is common on social media. As Jerry Reilly says the point of the article is that Newton is quite active, progressive and generous in most all areas except Affordable Housing. Along with pointing out that Newton residents are reliably philanthropic, the article describes Waban’s generosity: “public school families are generous, raising more than $50,000 annually for each of the two elementary schools. People give of their time and money.”
In 2014, $457K was allocated to the Newton Homebuyer Assistance Program and $910,179 was allocated to the Myrtle Village project – all from Community Preservation Funds.
Jerry – I can also call the Tab or the Globe with an idea for an article that will catch the attention of the overworked, underpaid reporters. In fact, in the past I did it, but the whole process ended up leaving me jaded about present day media outlets. It’s why I choose to get my information elsewhere and cancel my subscription to the Globe. The regional editions of the Globe were the worst offenders – you could literally feed the reporter the story and read it the following week.
Writing about the things about a city, state, or nation that work well just doesn’t sell papers or attract viewers.
@Jane: It’s unfortunate that you’ve adopted such a negative impression of newspapers. They are still a democracy’s best watchdogs. The Globe has made significant strides and investments in the John Henry/Brian McGrory era. They have so many remarkable journalists who rise to the occasion every day. I wish the TAB wasn’t so resource deprived but the team there is smart and work incredibly hard. Plus, Andy Levin is clearly as passionate about our city as anyone.
@Amysangiolo – I’m glad you mentioned the Myrtle Village project. Last month I heard Rev Howard from the Myrtle Church speak at a public meeting. He said that project ran into some fierce local opposition and (I believe) he said it had to be scaled back. He went on to say very clearly and emphatically that the ONLY significant, though modest, contribution to affordable housing in Newton in recent years has been 40B projects, and they have been wildly unpopular with the citizenry – though no alternative strategy for dealing with the housing issue ever seems to be proposed.
All of this would seem to confirm the gist of the Boston Magazine article.
Point taken though that some limited city resources, i.e. CPA funding, has been allocated for affordable housing in recent years.
Jane, like you, I share a similar disgust towards newspapers, thanks in part to the extreme, unprofessional, left-wing bias exhibited by Greg Reibman, Gail Spector, Don Seiffert and Emily Costello when they ran the Newton TAB.
Biased, Blinkered and Boring is no way to run a newspaper. Unfortunately, Biased, Blinkered and Boring was the M.O. of Gatehouse Media and its hundreds of publications. No wonder why they went bankrupt in 2013.
Now that Greg Reibman is the President of the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce, he has transformed, and transmogrified it into the Chamber of Cronyism. In 2013, he was the driving force behind the Chamber’s endorsement of the 2013 override yet nine months later he was calling for special tax breaks for the business community. That must have been his 30 pieces of silver for doing Setti’s dirty work. Reibman also supports the plastic grocery bag ban and the welfare for developers law (AKA 40B).
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2013/12/10/attracting-high-tech-to-newton/#comment-93908
This virtual donnybrook between Greg and Joshua is riveting! Not.
I agree Michael.
But just for the record (and then I will attempt to be done here) I thought that rather than point out that — just as Josh must be right — when he says that all this snowfall is proof that our planet isn’t getting warmer, here’s some things that Josh Norman is also right about:
1.) It’s true that Gail Spector and I are so powerful that we are entirely responsible for the 40B law’s existence not just in Newton but all of Massachusetts.
2.) It’s also true that my oversight of 13 of GateHouse Media’s 200 or so papers in 20-something states lead to their bankruptcy. (And please pay no attention to the fact that they’ve reorginized and continue to grow.)
3.) It’s also true that Gail, Don, Emily and I single handily selected and elected every member of every elected office serving Newton. Obama and Deval Patrick were our doing too.
4.) In fact, our aldermen are so deeply indebted to me that this year alone they: a.) Supported the workforce housing project at 135 Wells Ave b.) Allowed our businesses and non-profits access to outdoor water meters c.) Overwhelmingly endorsed allowing MassChallenge to use the Newton Centre Library rent free.
5.) Also, people please stop giving Aldermen Leary and Norton credit for the plastic bag ban. It was me. All me.
@Jerry: I understand Rev. Haywood’s disappointment for scaling back the project but I think it is important to strike a balance regarding how much density goes into one neighborhood. Drive into that neighborhood and you will see how much development it is currently absorbing now.
To really address the affordable housing issue – we need to have a more comprehensive approach. The number of housing units developed in this community under 40B pales into comparison to the number of market rate units that are being built. We have to preserve what little modestly priced housing stock we have now along with allowing for modest growth. There is no one, absolute solution that does not significantly alter the character of Newton. Until such time that we embrace a multi-pronged approach that keeps Newton affordable, we will continue on this trend of creating a community of extremes.
Very accurate and well-written account of a shameful aspect of life in Newton.
Who would be against “Affordable Housing” or “Smart Growth?” Sounds like a good deal and well thought out development right? What I have learned over the last couple of years is that those terms have been systematically applied to situations that were neither. Along with the video on the 40B process the WAC produced, I put everything up on the website I could find including the NIMBY video which includes the architects of 40B explaining their intentions and what actually happened. Understanding the larger system this is all connected to and what is really behind the curtain is not going to happen by reading surface symptoms mentioned in this blog or Lauren’s article. http://wabanareacouncil.com/issue/housing-and-zoning
As for running for the WAC positions because of the Engine 6, I can guarantee nobody did so because of this one issue. We did do so because we realized that the village needed to get in front of issues that impacted our community, some that were being acted upon with no community input, others barely mentioned – playing catch up is a losing proposition and there is a lot of that going on in Newton. We have come a long way after 1 year, but we are under no illusion that there isn’t much, much further to go. You want to make a difference, come to meetings of the WAC or come to Future Planning every 3rd Thursday of the month: next one March 19th will be on Housing. If you don’t live in a village that has and area council, start one.
It seems like one important factor in how this was received by the community was the fact that it was presented almost as a fait accompli at the first public meeting:
Unfortunately, this seems to happen quite often in Newton – by the time most folks in the community are officially presented with a project, there is the perception that it’s already a done deal and the result is an inclination to react against. I do know that resistance to affordable housing of any kind does exist in our community, and I realize that the way a project is presented to the community is only one factor, but it’s a big one when you’re trying to get buy-in.
The concept of “affordable housing” sounds great. But it’s not “affordable”. It’s “subsidized”. Just like the “Affordable Care Act”. We are of course finding that what that really means is “subsidized” and those who don’t get subsidies because they don’t qualify are experiencing sticker shock in their insurance rates.
Let’s be honest about legislation, if that’s possible. Using euphemisms like “affordable housing” or “affordable health care” or “comprehensive immigration reform” or “violent extremism” or other terms that mask the real effect is disingenuous. When we are honest about what’s going on, then perhaps we can have an honest debate. By using euphemisms, the side that the supports what’s really in the bills attacks the other side as if they are being difficult.
I was not going to comment on anything until I got back to Newton, but Joshua’s contention that all the snow and cold weather must demonstrate the fallacy of what global warming adherents have been claiming. Quite the contrary. The major models and other scientific data I was looking at in the early to mid 80’s at EPA in Washington concluded even then that the overall warming of the planet would be accompanied by almost freak like blizzards and very cold temperatures as cold air from Siberia and our own Arctic was forced south in North America as it was displaced by warmer air from other parts of Asia. These models were very crude by today’s standards, but they pointed to a number of factors that have become far more apparent today. And yes, I’ve seem evidence of shrinking glaciers near the southern tip of South America. No, the threats are very real and increasingly apparent.
Bob,
I thought I made it clear on other threads that global temperatures have stopped their rise and are starting to decline.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-who-got-it-right-predicts-20-more-years-global
One should always get one’s news and information from the Cybercast News Service, formerly “Conservative News Service.” Or, barring that, Newsmax.
“The Right News, Right Now.” Tee-hee! What a chuckle.
PS, the placement of that picture of Al Gore holding his hand to his forehead is awesome. AWESOME!
Greg, where you born a nasty, sarcastic, snarky, caustic little twit, or did you work at it your whole life?
I’m disappointed that you’re only response to my observations is to resort to putting words in my mouth.
Unlike you, I’m not ashamed of any political stance I’ve taken on the issues.
I understand why there is friction between you and I. Unlike you, I stand for life, liberty, limited government, the pursuit of happiness, fiscal stewardship, patriotism and personal responsibility.
You’re a dogmatic left-wing Unenrolled in Name Only voter who reflexively supports more taxes, more government spending, more government borrowing, more regulations and special handouts to your cronies at the chamber.
Michael, it doesn’t matter what I say about the global warming scaremongering, you’ll demonize the source anyway.
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2006AM/finalprogram/abstract_108164.htm
Greg, one last thing about your last post.
Instead of trying to demonstrate how ridiculous I was, you managed to success in demonstrating how ridiculous you are.
I would never demonize a charlatan like your man Don Easterbrook, whose global warming predictions were disproved in only a decade.
Josh,
The source you provided, the GSA, does not endorse the opinion of Easterbrook and has updated their opinion from the old (2006) statement that you quote. As of 2014:
” The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.” GSA
Will you now drop them as a source? Or will you consider the issue in a new light, as they have done?
@Joshua Norman – Your comments above clearly violate the guideline below, please refrain from any further like comments
.. and please, no additional he-said-no-he-said type of comments. Let’s move on.
Is there ever going to be a time when Greg and Josh both grow up? Gentleman, agree to disagree and move on. The constant sniping back and forth between the two of you tends to hijack threads and frankly makes both of you look bad. You are both adults, act like it.
@Mr. Mike Striar, I know many Newtonians & some are generous, others less so. But your statement about Newton having met “it’s legal obligation under 40B” is patently false.
State rebuffs Newton again on 40B claim
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20150224/NEWS/150228367
I believe the writer did a very good job bringing the meat of this matter to light.
Greg – I’m a greater believer in the responsibility of the media to be watchdogs for the citizenry, but I don’t see journalists being able to fulfill that role in the current environment. Anonymous bloggers rule at the local level, and too many people are willing to demean hard working people in many capacities because they never have to accept responsibility for their hurtful words. I know you know that I have the greatest respect for journalists, but just as in every profession, one needs adequate resources to do the job well. My comments were in no way meant to demean journalists at the Tab, the Globe, or any other media outlet. I’m a full supporter of people who work in the trenches in any profession. No doubt Andy Levin is doing the very best job that he can given the resources available to him.
So it’s time to stop talking the talk, and start walking the walk. I can’t complain about anonymous bloggers and continue to use only my first name. I am who I am, first name and last.
@Bedford Linwood– Thanks for the link to that new article. I do not believe that Mayor Warren and the City of Newton “fabricated” any information pertaining to the city having met it’s 40B obligation, as they are accused of having done in that article. I believe the city has in fact met its legal obligation, and this will be proven out through appeals and litigation.
This is about the most credible data on global temperature analysis we have, and it shows warming, with 2014 being a record year:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Nathan,
You need to use a longer perspective. A hundred years or so is a pretty narrow view of the earth’s trends in climate. Look here at the variation over hundreds of thousands of years, which is easily available also on the web.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#mediaviewer/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg
According to this, there is a pretty regular cycle of a hundred thousand years or more, and we are at the peak of one of them. The last peak, a hundred and twenty thousand years or so ago saw temperatures higher than what we are seeing today, without internal combustion engines and coal-based power plants.
Yes, Barry, you are correct, the long view helps. In fact, we’ve had 5 major extinction events in the last 450 million years, all related directly or indirectly to climate change. We are in the midst of a planetary revolution now, with CO2 having jumped 40% in the blink of an eye (not to mention methane, nitrogen and other compounds) – and no one, even so-called climate skeptics – argue that humans are not the cause of the 40% step change in our atmosphere. The causal link between greenhouse gases and climate was put forth by eminent scientists including Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, and Svante Arrhenius, well over 100 years ago. Moreover, the elevated CO2 leads to ocean acidification, which threatens the calcium-carbonate-based shells of creatures at the base of the food chain.
As the grandson of a western pennsylvania coal miner, and the son of an asphalt and tar roofer, I owe my life to fossil fuels. They built our modern civilization. But now we must realize that it is time to move to the next stage of human energy development and move aggressively toward clean energy. It’s good for human health and good for business and the economy. If you think this is a leftwing push for socialism and regulation, in fact the opposite is the case. Solar cells are scaling faster than cell phones, and the economies of scale indicate that the price of solar and wind will widely be lower than fossil fuels within the decade (it already is in many places). Solar energy, unlike fossil energy, embodies the concept of energy democracy, because you and I can be producers and sellers – freeing ourselves from dependency on distant centralized vertically integrated and vulnerable utilities – whose profits, by the way, are guaranteed by public regulation. That’s why Tea Partiers like the head of Atlanta’s Tea Party, Debbie Dooley, are strongly pro-solar: its about freedom, independence, and economic prosperity.
“Greg, where you born a nasty, sarcastic, snarky, caustic little twit, or did you work at it your whole life?” – Joshua Norman
Oh. Wow. Pot, meet kettle….
Nathan,
You were ready for that, huh?
A lot of talk, but it still doesn’t explain why we should invert our entire lifestyle and all the infrastructure that supports it in order to combat what clearly appears to be a sort of cosmic phenomenon, even if there’s some effect due to fossil fuels.
If you can give me a decent reference or a few on the honest facts about climate change, I’d appreciate it. The worst was Al Gore’s movie that spent about three minutes showing the hockey stick curve we’re all supposed to be afraid of and about an hour with depictions of devastating end-of-days scenarios.
Do you remember the Club of Rome report of the 1970″s that predicted, using for its time fairly sophisticated computer simulations to prove that by around 2000 (this is 2015), we’d be out of critical resources like petroleum, which we have in abundance, and other things, and that huge wars were going to be fought over just access to drinking water?
Give me a break. If solar energy is cost-effective, it will succeed. As of today, it’s only useful in climates with dry atmospheres and high incidences of solar radiation, like Arizona or places in the middle east, certainly not here in the Boston area.
Barry, renewables (including solar) are working really well in Germany – not exactly like Arizona. Their grid is more reliable than the US, and their investment will pay off with no continuing fuel costs:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/08/11/germanys-grid-is-one-of-worlds-most-reliable/
I agree that if solar is cost effective, it will succeed. The cost of solar has dropped 80% from 2008-2014, and every 3 weeks in the US solar is installed as much as in all of 2008. And all indications are that the economies of scale will continue.
Nathan,
Personally, I’m not opposed to renewable energy. I like it. I just don’t want it imposed on me by people who have a religiously dogmatic opposition to fossil fuels or nuclear fuels if it doesn’t make honest sense. And I certainly don’t want it imposed upon me because of a scam like global warming.
I don’t know what determines the economics in Germany or other places. However, it’s common to either heavily tax fossil fuels in Europe or give tax incentives for the use of renewables. It’s also usually necessary, depending upon the climate, to require backup for solar for times when it’s not available, or for excessive solar to be stored for those times, thereby increasing the cost of the equipment. The backup is usually fossil fuels which are can be easily stored and brought on line quickly, something not true about renewables.
Using taxes to make renewables “affordable” is like “affordable housing” or “affordable health care”. Someone else is paying for it. See my comments above on this.
I think most of us wouldn’t have been too happy if we had to rely upon solar energy over the past few weeks of snowstorms here in the northeast.
Native Newtonian, I don’t think you’re really a native of Newton. If you were, you wouldn’t be taking the side of the Berlin, CT born Greg Reibman over a multigenerational Newtonian like myself.
Joshua Norman, I think maybe you are stuck in a rut. Sometimes being multigenerational in one place stifles growth potential. I have lived in eleven states and have learned something useful from each one. Isn’t this thread about NIMBYism? Well it’s now my backyard too and I like diversity, economically and every other way, including the chronically homeless. So that’s where I want my taxes to go.
I don’t know if this is true or not, but the Internet claims that when Jerry Reilly was detained by Her Majesty’s Immigration for several hours on suspicion of being an IRA sympathizer, his girlfriend dutifully waited for him in the arrivals hall for several hours until he was released.
And then shortly after he was reunited with her, he asked his girlfriend to marry him.
And she said yes!
And she’s right over there!
@Michael – Yes, I’m afraid that’s all true. Damn you Internet!
Marti, Newton used to be a nice place to live until left-wing carpetbaggers moved here, took over control of Newton government and pushed their left-wing, big government agenda of more burdensome taxes, more wasteful government spending, more reckless government borrowing, and nanny state regulations such as the plastic grocery bag ban.
@Jerry – for some reason, my comment now appears to be a high fly ball outta nowhere. C’est la vie!
@Joshua – awesome stuff! You’re bringing a smile to a lot of people’s faces. What else do you hate about us?
But psssst, this town was always left wing, even before you were born. Sorry to burst your bubble. In 1984, Mondale beat Reagan 62% to 37%. In 1972, McGovern beat Nixon 59% to 39%.
Maybe you’re thinking of Newton, Georgia? Now that place, we commie carpetbaggers made one heck of a mess of!
@Michael – That old girlfriend you mentioned is the brains of this operation. She took one look at that comment I left and said “you’ve got to take it down”. I sheepishly did. Sorry to have set you up like that …. but I’m always grateful for promotional opportunities for the story slam. Thanks
You know, I don’t like how he expresses it, but I think Joshua is correct about the change in Newton, but it precedes 1984, which is why Mondale was elected. Like with global warming, you need a longer perspective. As more modest homes were built in Newton, such as the Oak Hill Park post-war development where I once lived, its character changed from generally a bedroom community for bankers and executives from Boston. This changed the voting patterns. Those who want more subsidized (oops, affordable) housing in Newton really want more people here who will vote their way. Those opposed to the McMansions seem to be the same people, and they fear that an influx of wealthier people will shift the voting patterns in the opposite direction.
Josh Norman will not be eligible to participate on Village 14 for the next month. He was notified that he was in violation of our commenting rules by Jerry last night. Some of his comments have been removed.
@Barry Cohen – As a sample of one … I can tell you that my personal support of affordable housing has absolutely nothing to do with any potential for changing voting patterns.
As for an “influx of wealthier” people, Newton overall has always been a relatively wealthy town and in recent years has grown more so. Newton has also been a reliably political liberal town and that shows no signs of abating. So I question why you would think there’s any evidence that an influx of wealthier people would make Newton more conservative. It hasn’t so far.
I find it amusing that Mr. Norman questions my status as a native of Newton! My parents, if they were still alive, would also get a good laugh out of it. 60 years of residency may not be multigenerational but it is a lifetime for me! I am proud to be Newton born and bred, although that pride has diminished somewhat in recent years. This CIty has gotten less civil, less welcoming, less caring…the administration, more arrogant – but that arrogance is matched by the critics of the administration. Mr. Norman, my comment had nothing to do with whose “side” I was taking. It has to do with civility and the maturity to express oneself without resorting to name-calling.
Jerry,
“I can tell you that my personal support of affordable housing has absolutely nothing to do with any potential for changing voting patterns.”
So, what is the reason, and how do you justify just taking other people’s money for it?
Go Josh! Go Josh!!!! You are one smart cookie!!!!
Native Newtonian-I agree with you 100% and I especially agree about the administration.
Barry, it’s really grasping at straws to say that liberals support affordable housing in order to attract people who will vote like them.
And how, in a 40B development where 75% of the units are market-priced and 25% are “affordable” by someone making 80% of the area’s median income, are we “taking other people’s money for it”?
A family of four in Newton living in a house assessed at $900,000 pays $10,500 per year in taxes. The cost of educating their two children is $34,282 per year. Are they “taking other people’s money”? Did you and your family ever “take other people’s money”?
Reasonable people, even the filthy rich, generally agree that making sure our children are educated, and making sure that everyone in the community has a roof over their heads, is something which is in everyone’s best interest. Or maybe you would prefer that unschooled, homeless children roam the streets, attacking the richest among us?
Michael,
“To be counted for the purposes of Chapter 40B, affordable housing has to have the following characteristics:
▪ The units must be approved for direct state or federal subsidy”
Sounds to me like we are taking other people’s money to provide this “subsidy”. Wouldn’t you agree?
And it’s irrelevant that society has decided to provide universal education up to a certain age. I can agree that this is for the benefit of all of society.
But, providing subsidies for people to live in Newton is not. I didn’t move to Newton until I felt I myself could pay for it. Finally, I moved here, and, as I said, first lived in Oak Hill Park because that’s what I could afford at the time.
I didn’t expect the government to provide a subsidized mechanism for me to be able to live in Newton. I lived somewhere else that was less expensive and “affordable” to me, not to the government.
Barry, housing in Oak Hill Park was originally constructed using public funding under Chapter 372 of the 1946 Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts. That’s the only reason those houses were built, and the only reason you were able to find affordable housing in Newton.
Michael,
Wrong.
By the time I bought a house there, the prices were fair market prices for what the general Newton market reflected. The vets deserved a subsidy for their service. Someone who happens not to earn enough to live in Newton or Weston or the like does not.
Barry,
Oak Hill Park never would have been constructed in the “fair market.”
If the “fair market” had to decide, OHP would have developed in the same way that the rest of Newton developed – with true “fair-market” housing. And you never would have been able to find an affordable house in this town.
The only reason that there was an affordable neighborhood for you in Newton was due to the generosity of the Commonwealth in 1946.
Michael,
You’re right about OHP being there, and, you know what, if it weren’t, I would have waited until I could afford what Newton had to offer, with the possibility that I might never live in Newton. I don’t think I’ll ever live by John Kerry in Louisburg Square .
Yes, OHP was available, but it was priced commensurate with the market when I bought there. It wasn’t subsidized for me.
Barry,
You were a huge beneficiary of the Commonwealth’s 1946 subsidies, by the very fact of the affordable Oak Hill Park neighborhood ever existing.
Without the Commonwealth’s subsidies, OHP would have, at the very least, been colonials and Tudors beyond the level of affordability for you at that time, or at the other extreme, perhaps it would have been populated with the mansions of upper Dudley St. We’ll never know. But without public funding, there would have never, in a million years, been the basement-less houses that you were able to afford.
I certainly admire your hard work and your having lived within your means. But I’m very happy that in 1946 our political leaders had the foresight to subsidize the development of neighborhoods that a large cross-section of society was able to afford, for generations to come.
And I’m pleased that some of today’s politicians remain committed to the same ideals for the next generation, through affordable housing programs.
Michael,
I don’t think you read what I said. I agreed with helping the vets. That’s a special thing. But there’s no reason to simply provide charity for people to live in an expensive city like Newton, who perhaps could afford, with their calculated incomes, to live in a less expensive town where OHP sorts of housing was built because it was what the market was in those towns.
You’re now talking about forcing me to pay for a charity, which this is, because you personally believe in it. You know what, donate yourself voluntarily and encourage other like-minded people to do so. I think that’s what Jimmy Carter did.
I mean, you’re free to donate to any charity you want. Give to or volunteer for “Habitat for Humanity”. But what gives you the right to take my money for your choices of charity, like “affordable housing”, or “affordable health care”, just because you believe in it?
@Barry Cohen – you asked ” how do you justify just taking other people’s money for ”
I justify it in the same way that I justify paying to educate other peoples kids, subsidizing other people’s parents’ old age, looking after that infirm, providing for our common protection via police and fir departments, paving our roads.
It’s not taking “other people’s money”, it’s taking my money, it’s taking our money – that’s what a democratic government is. We pool our tax money to fund the betterment of the common good. We elect our representatives to oversee that.
Unless you are a 100% anarchist, and I strongly suspect you’re not, you also justify “taking other people’s money” to spend on what you want it spent on.
As for affordable housing specifically, it’s not a Newton problem, its a regional problem. Over the last 30 years or more, the bottom end of the wage scale has been nearly static and the prices of bottom end of the housing market have risen steadily. Today we have the situation where large numbers of folks, working more hours than I ever want to work, can not afford the cheapest market rate housing anywhere in the metro area. The result is large numbers of homeless people in one of the wealthier cities in one of the wealthiest countries. I find that unconscionable. While its not a problem of Newton’s creation, I would hope Newton would do some small part to help with the solution.
Just for a reality check. The state of Massachusetts minimum wage was just increased from $8 to $9 this past January. That’s $1440/month for a 40 hour work week. Now imagine you live extremely frugally. Figure out your bare minimum monthly expenses for food, transportation …. Take what’s left over, go on Craigslist and look for the cheapest housing anywhere in the metro area. There are none.
I do get that it galls you that our government is spending our tax dollars on things you would rather they didn’t. Welcome to the club. We all have things that we would rather the government didn’t spend our tax dollars on. We just have different opinions about what those are.
@Barry – sorry to be repetitive, but my only real point here is that you were a huge beneficiary of the affordable housing subsidies of 1946, whether you acknowledge that or not.
The veterans benefited from them, the veterans’ wives benefited from them, the veterans’ children benefited from them, and the next couple of generations of homebuyers, including yourself, benefited from them.
Anyway maybe in the future the grown students of the Newton Public School system should espouse the same mentality, and question why society should be “subsidizing” subsequent generations of public school students with our “charitable” system of education.
Or our “charitable” day care programs. Or our “charitable” public roads and public parks. Or our “charitable” libraries. Or our “charitable” social security system.
At this point in your life, you can afford to send your kids or grandkids to private school and expensive daycare, drive only on toll roads, buy your own books at the library, and send your (current or future) Social Security checks back from whence they came. Or perhaps you’re convinced that your social security contributions far exceeded the benefits that you’re going to get back.
There was an interesting NYT series a few years back about how a large chunk of this countries’ critics of “big government” are actually its biggest beneficiaries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html
Michael and Jerry,
I’ve responded to Michael and I think it covers that part of Jerry’s post that relates to the subject of this discussion.
You’ve brought in a whole bunch of issues into what was a pretty limited point that I was trying to make. I’m not going to respond to any of the superfluous stuff since it’s irrelevant, it’s designed to make me look like some cold-hearted freak, and it’s a diffuse mixture of irrelevant things some of which I support and some of which I oppose, but it really leads us into a never-ending wasted discourse.
But, if I might add, Jerry sounds like a Barak Obama campaign speech in which he tells everyone who feels he isn’t getting enough that his government will give it to him, as if there’s no other way, or as if no-none should ever do without anything.
So, Michael, can I get the state to subsidize me to live next door to John Kerry?
Barry, John’s house is on the corner of Pinckney. A quick search of ‘affordable housing on Beacon Hill’ shows that you can live the next street over, on the corner of Derne. Close enough!
http://commonwealthlandtrust.org/properties-and-services/properties/beacon-hill/
You cannot, however, get the fire hydrant removed so that your incredibly wealthy, condiment-company-inheriting wife (if you have one) can park her Range Rover there. Some privileges are reserved for the fantabulously rich and powerful among us.
I’m opposed to censorship, and I object to Joshua Norman being banned from V-14 for one month. While admittedly I found some of Joshua’s comments to be rude, the penalty for that should be limited to any damage he may have done to his own reputation. In my opinion, the effort to silence Joshua, is far more objectionable than anything he wrote on V-14. People come to this blog of their own free will, and post at their own peril. We should be encouraging a diversity of opinions, not censoring those we disagree with.
Mike, this is not about censoring Joshua’s opinions. If he would stick to his opinions, he’d be more than welcome. But, in a recent post, for example, where he tried to discredit a commenter by attacking the commenter’s parents, he demonstrated that he is unable to separate opinions from their source. Most of us get a little heated sometimes, but there’s a limit to what people should have to tolerate.
Mike Strair,.. Well said ,.. I agree !
Anyone who breaks the commenting rules by personally attacking other commenters or certainly a young person’s parents not just once but a number of times will be treated the same way regardless of their opinions, I am sure. Read the comments still here and on some other recent threads and you will see that his opinions are still there. Only his personal attacks have been removed. Why do you think the commenting rules are there? You have to play by the rules.
This can be a blog where opinions are exchanged, or it can devolve into something similar to the ridiculous comment section at the end of articles on Boston.com and the Herald. While I don’t judge a poster’s comments based on his/her background comes, expressing pride in one’s personal history/background should be totally off limits.
I agree with Mike Striar that a month ban for Josh is pretty harsh. That punishment doesn’t fit the crime in my opinion. What if he agreed to apologize or something? I enjoy reading Josh’s comments. I do not know what he said that lead to him breaking the rules but I do know that he offers an educated and differing view point to the majority of posters on here. It would be pretty boring if everyone on here shared the same opinions and political beliefs. I spent 20 years in a place where everyone shared the same view points and it was extremely stagnating and boring.
@Alison: If you don’t know what he said, how do you know that the punishment doesn’t fit the crime?
This was not the first time, or the second, third, fourth or fifth either. And I can tell you that he wrote a long email to Jerry today which in no way could be confused with an apology.
Finally, just to be clear, this wasn’t about comments directed towards me or Ted or any other public person.
This thread is closed.