Newtonville resident Jack Prior shared his summary, with some photos, from yesterday’s community meeting about the Austin Street project. He covers some good material here, and I’m wondering if anybody else who attended has anything to add.
I was very taken aback to learn that the photo below (lifted from Prior’s site) was on display, given that it was taken on Christmas morning. What possible purpose was there is displaying that photo? What possible purpose was there in taking that photo?
I just got an automated poll from 617 863 2566 that had a number of interesting, if tendentious and borderline push-poll-y questions about my feelings about affordable housing in Newton, developers building luxury apartments at commuter rail, Newton’s alleged hostility to businesses like Trip Advisor and Clarks, and many direct questions about Mayor Warren, the aldermen, and what scenarios would make me more or less likely to oppose or support them. Any ideas who might be behind this and whether there’s a good story here for the local press?
I believe in their First Amendment right to call me and ask these questions, and in my First Amendment right to encourage the media and Internet posters to pursue their First Amendment right to understand who ‘s asking and why.
I just got this call also…right in the middle of trying to get dinner on the table.
I listened for a moment but when there was no “opt out” choice, I just hung up.
Annoying.
Gail, the only things missing from the photo are tumbleweeds and dried out skull bones of fallen cattle.
I seriously wonder who was the hapless intern that grasped the short straw to have to get up on Christmas morning and take this photo for the developer.
365 days and this was really the only day available in the year to take a photo?
Gee whiz, what conclusions could one come to regarding the reason?
I’ve got no opinion on Austin St., but I’m confused as to how anyone could be upset with the photo.
It seems to me that not having vehicles throughout the image gives you a pretty clear view of the street, the parking lot, and the neighborhood.
Would it be preferable to have a different picture showing the neighborhood’s hustle-and-bustle, with a Shaw’s tractor-trailer roaring toward us and blocking 80% of the frame?
Michael, the picture is disingenuous. It tries to create the image that the public parking lot is not used to the level that it is under normal business circumstances. That the developer did not disclose the date and time factors of the picture insults the intelligence of the audience. I am surprised they did not photoshop in a beautiful blue sky. Maybe that will be done when they show us pictures of their “new” proposal with the added citizen input. The developers want to earn our trust and cooperation, and then pull a silly marketing stunt like this picture.
The same can be said of the picture they removed during the session. They had added lots of trees in the village, which are not there nor in the present budget to be planted.
I’m just surprised there’s no snow. It feels like it has been here forever and may never melt.
I got a phone call too – I wonder if the Mayor is trying to figure out if he should run again based on what he has done for Newton.
Questions like – should he spend taxpayer money to fight 40 B litigation, the override etc.
I wonder who was behind this and if the Newton Taxpayers paid for this too.
Joanne – It’s quite a leap from a push poll to taxpayer money paying for the poll. In all my years in Newton, no poll has been paid for by tax payers. When I called the number, the message machine said “The Google subscriber is not available. Please leave a message.” Which of course I did, asking for a return call. Not holding my breath for a return call.
I didn’t talk to the developer about parking at the meeting, but how can they propose the parking attendant will be able to valet park cars and run the stacking machine efficiently during peak hours? Cars would queue up waiting to get into and out of the lot during busy times.
It’s easy enough to combat that pic. Pay an employee at the Star Market to snap a photo every day that they are at work and have them text it to you. I bet someone who works or lives in that area would do that task for cheap money. Then use all the pics to make a collage of what that parking lot really looks like on a usual basis. Don’t complain about it be proactive and do something about it if it really bothers you. Are you listening NVA to my good idea? I know you listened to some of my ideas in the four hour meeting you asked me to attend because I got an email with a disclaimer attached to it as I suggested you do in that meeting.
My completely uninvolved-in-local-politics husband answered the poll yesterday. He couldn’t tell who it was from, but said you had no choice other than to agree or disagree with questions that clearly represented an agenda.
I’m glad that the next stop for this proposal is, finally, a committee of the whole meeting of the Board of Aldermen, followed by public hearings and, ultimately a vote. Hopefully that all happens this spring, or else, I suspect, there will be pressure on the board to postpone it to the fall.
This entire project has been hanging over — and dividing — our city for too long now. It’s time to move the question, either approve it or not, and then move on.
Greg, where did you hear that Austin Street is headed for a COTW? Once a special permit application goes on the docket it must be scheduled for a public hearing. A COTW meeting would be premature to say the least.
@Aldermen Hess-Mahan: That’s the way it was explained to me yesterday by someone at City Hall. I thought the plan was to have that meeting prior to filing the special permit. But I could have misunderstood that, I’m sure you know more about it than me.
And either way, my point is the same, let’s resolve this before the summer.
Haha! No one working for the city tells me anything or asks my opinion, let alone takes my advice. But I agree with you that time is the enemy of this project, particularly in an election year. And it has to be decided before the term ends or else the process has to start all over again with a new BOA in 2016.
@Aldermen Hess-Mahan: Perhaps you need to speak up more often. Nope, that’s not it.
I have heard the argument before…gee, whiz, the developers/city planners/??? have spent so much time, energy and/or money that it is only fair to move forward. OK, so exactly what would the BOA be voting on, pray tell?
@Bob of Newton: The board has to either approve or not approve the special permit for the project. Yes, it’s only fair to let the developers who’ve devoted time and resources into this know if it’s happening or not. But it’s also only fair to citizen opponents and supporters who are investing their own time/resources into this.
And Ted can clarify if I’m stating this wrong but once we have the special permit that’s when we will know specifics, i.e. how tall, how many units, how many parking spaces, etc. etc. That’s not to say that changes might not be negotiated after that but finally nothing will be hypothetical.
Ha! No. No one has ever accused me of hiding my light under a bushel.
I’m having trouble understanding why the developers would display misleading posters unless they actually intended to mislead. If you want residents to share your vision why wouldn’t you want to actually present your vision. I’ve been to many a dog and pony show, even presented in them, and have found the truth works best, well groomed for sure, but the truth nonetheless.
The quality of the displays is disappointing. There is no way the “future” sketch in the Overview, which they later removed, would have made it to the presentation without the developers or the city seeing its glaring errors. (no building at all in the tiny space in the background, Walnut Street looking like a highway, the prominence of Shaws parking lot) It does show the size of Shaws relative to the other buildings while showing only trees instead of another rectangular box 2 times its height closer to the square on Austin Street.
The same goes for the poor quality, enlarged photograph looking down Austin Street on Christmas morning. It didn’t just slip by.
The poster of the aerial view with part of the building showing is not only incorrect (it’s not a depiction of an aerial view of the project) but its wording wouldn’t pass a high school presentation.
These things are just added to other ways we have been mislead during this proposal process, but it appears any public input will continue to be a waste of time. That is a shame because being open to changing it somewhat (it has remained basically unchanged since it’s submission) might have gained widespread support.
_______________
That “future” sketch in the Overview (later removed) is particularly misleading. As Marti pointed out, its use of perspective greatly exaggerates dimensions in the foreground (e.g., height of Shaw’s; size of Shaw’s lot; width of Walnut). But to portray the new building as virtually invisible is just amazing/ridiculous/brazen.
I used the Google Sketchup model I made a month ago to try to recreate approximately the same view, but with the new building visible (shown here). The dimensions in the model are approximate, but even if they’re off by a lot, that building looks quite massive — at least when it is not drawn in invisible ink!
If you want to view/rotate/zoom the model yourself, Adam put it into an online viewer. The link for it is in red, just below the third picture in this post. Use your mouse to grab the model to rotate it. Your mouse scroll wheel will zoom the view in and out. Click the arrow icon in the bottom-left to show a menu that zooms the model to fill the screen.
Jane – Please let us know who was behind this and who paid for it once they return your call. Based on the questions – I had to assume that the Mayor was behind this. And who funded it – your guess is as good as mine. If it wasnt US – maybe it was his Campaign Fund? Or maybe the Austin Street Developer?
Marti,
A developers ‘intention’ and motive is to make money. It’s business, not charity. They want to present to sell, they arent in the business to tell truths. This is why its important to look amd listen critically at all that is being forwarded. Since profits are important short cuts are sometimes taken with presentation materials. The object is not great design, self expression or great pride in product , its to get in and out with maximum dollars. Real Estate 101. Newtonville, traffic, parking, citizens, other attendant commercial activity be damned.
@Greg: Who at City Hall told you the project would go to a Committee of the Whole first? That is certainly news to me.
Emily,we did something similar with Riverside, although, unlike with Austin Street, there was a specific provision in the zoning that required it (my idea). Land Use presided over the review. In order to get something before a COTW, someone would have to docket an item. Of course, there is no reason the developer and the city could not present the conceptual plans during an informational session, as we often do with site plans for the schools. No formal action would or could be taken.
Blueprintbill, you must not know this, but I have been “looking and listening critically” and challenging certain aspects of this project (it’s size, it’s design) for years, in meetings, on this blog, in the Tab, and in emails.
I know the developers are looking for a profit, like all private enterprises. I also know that the easier it is to get a project through to the end the more money is made which is why it is good to gain support. In addition, this project is not only being presented by the developers but also by the city administration. I don’t agree that it will profit more through deceit than listening seriously to the town residents. They also still have to convince enough Alders to get the special permit.
Joanne – No one returned my call, but according to my husband, the questions lumped the mayor and the aldermen together in the questions. He thought the questions led to answers that portrayed the city in a negative light.
I’ll give the number a call again tomorrow, but in the interest of transparency and given that we have anonymous groups in the city and at least one new candidate who’s already run a poll, it’s troubling that whomever sponsored this poll hasn’t been open about it.
Jane- the first question asked was about the Mayor – the other questions – you are right included the BOA.
You are right – too bad they are not transparent. But I guess transparency and Politics dont always go hand in hand.
Who is the new candidate – and for which position?