“The plan to redevelop the Austin Street municipal parking lot in Newtonville will probably be substantially reduced in size and scope,” the Newton TAB is reporting.
Two noteworthy points:
A source close to the project said the number of apartments proposed has been reduced by 15 percent, down from 80 to 68 units.
All of the parking lot’s 127 spaces would be replaced, approximately half of them underneath the building.
In my opinion, the problem with the Austin Street project is not the size. The problem[s] is that it’s an awful business deal for the City of Newton, and they’re trying to hoodwink the public by pitching a luxury apartment complex as “affordable housing.” With apologies to P.T. Barnum, “there’s a sucker born every minute.”
@Mike: I’m wondering if you have some sort inside track on this deal because as far as I know the final proposed terms of a sale or lease haven’t been announced, just as the special permit itself has yet to be filed. (But it’s coming on Tuesday).
Meanwhile, based on the little we know from today’s TAB report, it appears that what the city is essentially selling are air rights above the parking lot.
Aren’t you the guy who has been proposing that exact same thing, just a block or so away?
Greg– It’s my understanding that the price is $1M for what is in-effect a long term ground lease. I may be wrong, and that price may be subject to change. And yes, I have been advocating cultivation of air-rights over the Mass Pike for years. Which is why I stated no objection to the size of the Austin Street project. But the one thing I have never proposed, is the City giving away the air-rights for pennies on the dollar, as the Mayor is apparently doing with Austin Street.
“Substantially” reduced? I got excited for a very brief moment. They’ve reduced the housing by 15%, that’s a modest downsizing, no more.
If these are the parameters of the final proposal, I very much oppose the project.
They Mayor promised an open process. Shouldn’t the citizens get a chance to voice their opinions on the project before it is considered?
How do they know half the spaces underground are OK with the citizenry?
How do they know 68 units is sufficiently small size?
I expect the Mayor to keep his word and give people the chance to scrutinize any new proposal via public forums before a vote.
@Paul: this process has been as “open” as anything I can recall, especially considering that nothing has been filed. Land Use will have public hearings. Aldermen will have a public vote. Time will tell but that seems pretty open to me.
Although I haven’t seen anything other than the TAB article, I think you may be confusing “under the building” with underground. I understood “under the building” to be street level parking. I’m assuming there’s even more parking underground for tenants which is in addition to the 127 public (street level) parking spaces. But we will know for sure on Tuesday.
From the Mayor’s press release when he chose Austin St Partners:
“Once negotiations conclude, preparations for the special permit will start with additional community meetings to shape the project design. Reviews by several advisory groups will take place alongside staff evaluations prior to being considered by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Aldermen. Public input will be solicited throughout this time.”
Negotiations seem to be concluding next week. He has promised community meetings and reviews by several advisory groups. That commitment needs to be carried through.
You can read the press release. He clearly promises additional input beyond what has already occurred, which he also promised in his announcement. Its very clear.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/59152
You’ve lost me Paul. Where did you hear that stuff isn’t going to happen? Every alderman I’ve spoken to is under the impression that there will be public hearings.
What are public hearings? Sounds different than community meetings. The latter is structured as the meetings with Dinosaur have been multiple Q&A sessions with the citizens, not through the BoA.
PS please read/write carefully. Nowhere did I suggest that “this stuff” wasn’t going to happen. Just stating that it needs to happen in order for the Mayor keep his word.
PS Mayor promises reviews of several advisory groups PRIOR to Land Use Committee. Will be good to hear more about that part of the process as well.
@Paul
Several public meetings have already been held this year in one form or another.
The supporters of this project would have you believe that the silent majority support the project.
To pass this the Mayor is going to need at least 16 votes from the Aldermen, which is tenuous at best.
You are quite correct though. Throughout the process the public were pretty much shown the same plans. And now if rumor is true then the number of units has been reduced a little, and thus the plans have changed. A little odd.
@Gregg,
Not sure how you find 15% substantial.
@Simon – What’s the threshold that you would consider “significant”? 5% would sound trivial but 15% seems like a substantial change to me. Perhaps not as much as you’d like to see, but significant nonetheless.
@Jerry,
If my salary was dropped by 15%, I would most certainly say significant.
For this unpopular project trying to win people over – not very significant.
Shame they are letting go of the stacked parking, I was looking forward to that debacle.
Here’s a link to the original RFP http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/58314
In the case of 40B Rowe St, Mr Oran started at 150. Then went down to 135. Then, after the city asserted 40B threshold he drastically reduced the number of units, if I recall correctly down to 87 units. That was significant, but still not enough for the abutters.
Although this seems significant to me, the phrase “substantially reduced” was the TAB’s word choice, not mine. My bad for not putting that in quotes. I’ve added them now.
Certainly the size of the project has always been an objection for some. But another major concern was loss of parking. If we’re now looking at not losing any street level parking, I’d say that is substantial (and you can quote me on that!)
Public hearings are a mandatory part of the special permit process, so the public will definitely have a chance to way in on the proposed project. But I have to say that I agree with Paul and Simon that the community engagement piece that was promised has been anemic at best. The few community meetings we had at NNHS were well attended but were so tightly orchestrated that it felt like people were talked at, not talked with. I support this project, but I would have loved to have seen a more robust effort at engaging the community in a constructive dialogue, which I just do not feel has happened. I am not sure how it would have influenced the proposal, but I can absolutely understand why people feel they have not been listened to.
If the building’s reconfiguration and reduction of units from 80 to 68 results in the elimination of a floor on the building (and as important, the height of the structure by the equivalence of one story), then I would agree that this is significant. If the size and height of the building remains basically unchanged, then this is just minor negotiating.
Interesting. Smart move by the developer if true. We’ll see what the details are. This should quickly separate the loud voices of the parking centric folks who constantly complain about the loss of parking if the details hold true. Those were the loudest voices, but I suspect many of the folks crying out for the parking were just using it as a straw man for other arguments, or are direct NIMBYs who live close the project.
I have to say though, that I largely agree with Mike. The land is worth more than $1,000,000. I’ve always wondered why no one was more upset when the city turned down the $5,000,000 purchase by a similarly sized project (the one that tied with this one). No one addressed why one developer was willing to pay $5,000,000 for the lot and the one we got stuck with was only willing to pay $1,000,000. I hope that the city and the alderman ask that question.
I think personally that the mayor is just more comfortable with these guys, either due to political support or friendship. But the loss of $4,000,000 is a lot of money, and I think Mike is asking the right question. Why isn’t it worth more? Teardown homes in Newton are selling for $650,000, and this lot would hold 10 of them easily. Why are we selling a city resource for below FMV? Why did we not take the $5,000,000 bid that ranked equally with this project?
And Greg, a long term ground lease for 99 years is considered a transfer for tax purposes. I think your comparison to the air right discussion is a bit glib. The air right discussion is fundamentally colored by the very expensive decking needed to build above the Pike. Lord knows I’ve given Mike the business over his air rights stand, but while I disagree with him about the ease to develop over the Pike, I do agree that we seem to be shorting ourselves here.
And this brings me to my next point. What is the cost of the 15% reduction? Do they pay the city less? Is this just gamesmanship (expand, then reduce)? Or will then now say that they won’t even pay a million for the ground lease? And will the payment be upfront? It should be. otherwise they aren’t paying a million, but about 20% of that (or less if it is a 99 lease). Or we can present value a stream of rent payments to get to the same value.
Finally and this is very important, are those funds going back to the village? Or has the village been lied to for the 7 years. Parking is important, design is important (the current design is ugly and blocky), FMV is important, and USE OF THE PROCEEDS IS IMPORTANT. Our alderman promised us that the funds would be used to beautify NEwtonville. I’m hoping they follow through on the promise.
@Fig: I wasn’t trying to be glib with my air rights analogy. Based on admittedly sketchy info, this seems to be what the developer may be offering..
“I will entirely repave and redo your ugly, old, broken-down, 1907’s-era, parking lot, replace all old coin meters with meters that use the latest technology so shoppers can pay by credit card or with their smart phones, maintain the lot year round, add lighting and landscaping in exchange for air rights to put a building above the parking. Oh and you still get to keep the meter revenue and will have the same number of street level parking spots that you have now.”
sorry, I should add..
“And I will pay you $1 million and you will collect significant, new, property tax revenue on my building as well.”
I agree with Ted that community input thus far has been lackluster, but thankfully the Mayor has promised more. Here is verbatim the relevant sections of his press release on the Austin St partner selection:
“Now that Austin Street Partners has been selected, negotiations will begin. A group of City officials, including the City’s Economic Development Director, City Administrative Officer, City Solicitor, Director of Planning and Development, and Chief Financial Officer will meet with Austin Street Partners to negotiate terms of a Land Disposition Agreement. During this time, Austin Street Partners will meet with the community to hear about its interests and concerns.
The principles that will guide these discussions include the City’s commitment to ensure the project will:
o Provide a focal point and welcoming gathering place for village activities;
o Provide positive benefits for the City, such as additional housing, activities, services, and patronage for existing businesses;
o Achieve site development objectives in a manner that is financially feasible and fiscally responsible; and
o Include opportunities for public participation throughout the process.
Once negotiations conclude, preparations for the special permit will start with additional community meetings to shape the project design. Reviews by several advisory groups will take place alongside staff evaluations prior to being considered by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Aldermen. Public input will be solicited throughout this time.”
The Mayor CLEARLY specifies a further set of community meetings AFTER negotiations. As well as SEVERAL advisory groups to evaluate the proposal.
The Mayor needs to keep his word. We’re only mid-stream through the set of community meetings that he promised.
I have detected a serious flaw in the current proposal which deeply troubles me. The RFP makes clear that 25% of the units must be affordable to low to moderate income households, i.e., households earning up to 80% of the area median income. However, as reported by the TAB, only 10 out of 68 units (15%) are affordable to households earning less than 80% of the area median income and another 7 earning up to 120% of the AMI. That is not what the RFP called for, and I cannot in good conscience support the project if it does not conform to the RFP.
I sincerely hope this is not a bait and switch by the Mayor.
@Ted: Alternatively worded, I hope that whoever gave this information to the TAB got it wrong.
Greg– You forgot to add… “I will make millions of dollars in profit and laugh all the way to the bank, because the taxpayers in Newton underwrote construction of my luxury apartment building.”
And Mike you forgot to add: “Independent Newtonville businesses that have had trouble staying open will now enjoy a new customer base who love walking to restaurants and shops in the village. Seniors will be thrilled that they can still live in Newton (and walk to the senior center) now that maintaining that big old Victorian is no longer viable. And young professionals who also want to live here but had no interest in a house with a yard and a garage, would also have a good alternative near stores and mass transit.”
“And did I mention that you still get to keep all your beloved parking spaces?”
@Gail, either way, someone should send in the dog to flush out the quail.
Please. Can’t look at just property tax revenue. Have to look at realistic cost of services to tell if it’s a net gain fiscally.
@Julia: Entirely correct to want to know that. Not as easy to measure in dollars and cents is the social value of adding affordable housing plus housing that can meet the needs of seniors and young professionals to a community that needs all three.
Oh and giving Village businesses a chance to thrive has value too.
In other words even if there is not a net tax gain, it can still be the right thing to do.
There’s no doubt in my mind Greg, the right project will be great for Austin Street. I’m not at all opposed to developing that parcel. But the deal has to make sense financially for the city.
In that regard it’s not unlike the Wells Ave proposal. When the developer there offered $1M I laughed. When they offered $3M it got my attention. When they offer $5M, so we can mitigate a fair amount of the educational costs associated with new school children, I will likely support that proposal. It’s all about getting the right deal for the city!
@Greg
Let’s keep in mind that another developer offered $5 million, they were scored the same as Austin St partners and we haven’t been given a great explanation why the lower bidder was offered the project.
This is about fair market value, and it’s hard to see $1 million being the right figure. We were offered 5x as much, residential developers routinely pay 500k to a million for a single family lot that’s .25 acre. I’m not aware of any analysis that suggests we are receiving market rate.
@Paul: As you like to say, please read/write carefully. Nowhere did I suggest what the right price was, just as nowhere did I suggest aldermen shouldn’t do their job and ask tough questions. Just stating that some times it’s not just about dollars and cents.
Does anybody know what the process is now that the RFP has “significantly” changed?
Is it fair on the other submitted RFPs?
Given Public opinion towards this proposal, would it be reasonable to re-evaluate?
ha, ha. 🙂
The social externalities you mention existed with many of the offers- that’s the point of a competitive bidding process. With everything being equal, as the city’s own evaluators assessed the situation- a tie score- it SHOULD be all about the dollars and cents.
The city’s dollars and cents, not the mayor ‘s campaign funds- just to ensure full clarity.
Paul,
If / When this eventually ends up before the Aldermen I hope you will be there voicing your opinion.
I think you engage the conversation in a manor the Aldermen will appreciate.
This conversation is increasingly surreal to me as 90% of knowledgable contributors ignore the elephant in the room. If the mayor chooses to award a contract to his friend over other legitimate bidders at a cost to the people of the city of $4,000,000, why is that not on the front page of local media, or on a prosecutor’s desk? What has a stronger appearance of corruption than that? Why is this not topic #1 in the city? I’m asking, not rhetorically, but because some of you must know, but aren’t saying. Has this been explained somewhere? If so, please provide a link and I will thank you in advance.
That, perhaps, “…the mayor is just more comfortable with these guys, either due to political support or friendship…” is not worth $4,000,000 to me as a taxpayer and voter. Is that really something someone can say, and then we move on without addressing it?
http://www.mass.gov/ethics/education-and-training-resources/implementation-procedures/municipal-employee-summary.html
The quote above is undocumented speculation by opposition about the selection of developers, so there is no link or viable source. There were two developers that met the RFP conditions, the other one that offered $5,000,000 included 96 units, a larger footprint and was also modular construction. There was a financial reason I can’t recall. They do have some nice developments listed on their website while the only one with character on the Oaktree Website is in Lexington and almost all of them have fewer units but are still huge. Their illustration of the proposal for Austin Street is misleading at best.
I’m looking forward to seeing the proposal being submitted for a special permit since we have never seen it before. I’m really hoping the type of affordable apartments listed are bad info and that fewer units translates into a smaller building.
@Ted, I have spoken with someone extremely close to the Austin Street Partners this weekend and I share your understanding: 15% of the units would be for 80% AMI households, and an additional 10% for 120% AMI households. Very few affordable housing units would be added, unless our sources are both mistaken.
@Jake, my highly reliable sources agree with yours.
This is a fundamental error in judgment. It will not pick up a single vote but will successfully alienate the aldermen who do support this project because of the affordable housing component. If this is the proposal, then I am done with this and will not waste another moment advocating for it. Well played, whoever came up with this brilliant idea.
I would bet dollars to donuts that this trial balloon just went flatter than Tom Brady’s balls, and that no special permit application will get filed this week.
Jake – If you’re going to be posting as a candidate for the BOA about a conversation with an anonymous source who is “extremely close to the Austin St. Partners”, then you can remove anything on your website about transparency in government. You can’t have it both ways. If you expect voters to see you as open and transparent then tell us who your source is. If you’re not going to do so, then you need to think about the implications of that. To have a gossip fest on a blog is simply unprofessional.
Jane,
You’re way off base.
To denigrate Jake’s post as a gossip-fest is ridiculous. He confirmed information THAT WAS PUBLICLY REPORTED BY THE NEWTON TAB. Confirming that isn’t gossip. Keeping his source anonymous is irrelevant. He shared information that actual alderman are keeping to themselves. It’s actually good to hear some more information than we typically do.
I completely agree with Paul. This isn’t gossip; it’s discussing facts only revealed in the Tab that should have come from the Mayor or the BOA officially.
Marti, not a single alderman I have talked to has been informed directly about the current status of the Austin Street project. I hold to my belief that this was a trial balloon. But it would have been better to have informed the aldermen about it before leaking this to the press. Only the Mayor’s office and the developers know what is going on and, at a bare minimum, they should have shared this with the aldermen from the ward first. This is an unforced error.
Agreed
Ted,
Many a comment on the RFP evalution said how well the city worked with the developer etc.
Who would within the city are they referring to?
Right now we have an in going court action going on the the developer and now it seems the Mayors office and the developer are alienating the Aldermen and General public.
I would say the relationship is turning rather sour.
Simon, you might very well think that. But, of course, I could not possibly comment.
APC: Let me be clear, since the original comment was mine, I wasn’t alleging corruption, and I definitely don’t believe anything of the sort. There are definitely differences between the proposals, and the mayor might care a lot about the differences. The greenstax construction materials being a big one, rental vs. condo, size, developer, etc. My point was that I don’t think it was the RIGHT decision, that the differences aren’t worth the sale difference.
Greg, I think you buried the lead on the price difference. As you might remember, I’m not anti-development, and I think there is potential for transforming my village center while at the same time adding affordable housing. But I’m having trouble finding much to like about this particular project besides it does SOMETHING with the lot, especially if none of the proceeds are invested back in the village center.
When the Tab reports from an unnamed source “close to the project”, then it’s gossip. The Tab wouldn’t even name the reporter who talked to the person “close to the project. When Jake says that he’s spoken to “someone extremely close to the project”, that’s gossip. When THM says he’s talked to a “highly reliable source”, that’s gossip. Neither of these two people nor the Tab has named the source. It’s a simple question to Jake, Ted, and the Tab – who is the source? It’s a simple question that has a simple answer.
@Jane: it is an entirely acceptable journalism practice to ultilize anonymous sources, although it’s also appropriate for journists to evaluate the motives of an annynomous source before deciding to use it or not. In this instance I don’t think the TAB did anything inappropriate, although it is interesting for the rest of us to speculate who the source was. (It was a little odd not to have a byline on the story.).
Btw, the original story was undated this morning.
Greg, I disagree. I think it’s a little unorthodox for the TAB to write a story with only one anonymous source. If they were able to confirm the information with a second credible source, that changes things.
From the way the story is written, it sounds like someone at the TAB might have actually seen the proposal but doesn’t want to say so. If the mayor or his staff was trying to leak this story, it backfired. If someone else knew about this — say, an alderman — and wanted to get it out there to advance his/her opposition or agenda, s/he succeeded and the TAB was an accomplice.
That all said, I have to wonder how it it would be possible for the developer to come up with a proposal that makes people happy and makes sense.
@Gail: That would depend on who the source is. If the source was, for example, the developer or the mayor (and I’m not suggesting either since I don’t know) then you really wouldn’t need to confirm it, now would you?
@Greg: Yes I would. Are you suggesting that mayors and developers never distort the truth to further their agendas? Certainly I’ve known some who’ve done just that. (I’m not saying that’s what’s happening here, but I’m saying that’s why confirming something with a second sources lends a lot of credibility to a story.)
Nope. I’m just saying they would be a source that clearly had access to the information as represented. The TAB did not present this as a fact, they presented it as a report of someone who had access to the current proposal.
The latest story on wickedlocalnewton says that “some 25 percent of the apartments would be affordable to those making no more than 80 percent of the Area Median Income.”
Imagine that. The information that the TAB had on Friday was either incorrect or has changed, and people — Alderman Hess Mahan, in particular — got worked up over nothing. Too bad there wasn’t a second source to confirm the information.
Ted,
That made be giggle.
This is what I was brought up with https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Doi1U7I1CyU
A comment has been removed from here. I’d ask the person who wrote it to review our commenting rules.
Paul made a good point earlier in this thread, referencing the mayor’s press release when he chose Austin Street Partners as the developer, and the mayor’s statements about the process, with “additional community meetings to shape the project design. Reviews by several advisory groups will take place alongside staff evaluations prior to being considered by the Land Use Committee of the Board of Aldermen. Public input will be solicited throughout this time.”
In addition, the entire Board of Aldermen approved a resolution which described a commitment to public participation in the process in similar terms:
ALD. ALBRIGHT & JOHNSON proposing a RESOLUTION requesting His Honor the Mayor assure the redevelopment of the Austin Street parking lot is handled in a way that carries out the objectives of the Board of Aldermen’s Reuse Board Order and fulfills all requirements of the city’s special permit process, including community input, parking, traffic/circulation, architecture/massing/design, outdoor space, and site plan details
I hope the mayor and Board will follow through on their stated plans to ensure the process follows these guidelines they outlined and/or approved.
I appreciate the responses. I’ve never spoken to anyone involved in any of this, but observing as a skeptical average citizen who has read every article and available gov’t document with increasing doubt, I don’t find it immediately plausible that only two developers submitted plans worth considering for a profitable development opportunity in Newton, especially given the flurry of construction going on all over the Greater Boston area by numerous firms, or that their offers differed by 500%, or that the $5M proposal was so non-negotiably bad that it was dismissed in favor of the $1M one, its only real competitor, or that it just happens that the winning developer is a local resident, one of two members of the mayor’s finance transition team, personally known to everyone in city government, and the same person behind other controversial developments in Newton. In reading dozens of articles and discussions like this one, I haven’t seen this addressed directly — not once. That *could* happen by pure merit, coincidence, and a surprising lack of competitive bids. But if I were the mayor or any member of city government, I would bend over backward to counter the very strong appearance of favoritism or insider dealing, especially if I knew it to be perfectly legal and ethical and believed it was in the best interests of citizens. And isn’t this really about ambition for future office or appointments, in which those appearances and public trust may turn out to matter a great deal? Despite all the coverage and discussion, there’s no meaningful transparency about how and why certain developers and projects are selected over their competitors, or why there are so few and narrow choices, for those relying on published information. I would be more comfortable leaving this to elected representatives if there weren’t so many conflicts of interest.
So much for writing a story that relies on one anonymous source, then having an Alderman and a candidate for the BOA making matters worse by repeating comments made by anonymous sources. Bad journalism based on gossip.
@Gail
The TAB’s update states that the plan was revised since Friday.
Paul – And there will continue to be revisions. We know that. The issue is that the Tab chose to write an article based on one anonymous source. Then one alderman and one aldermanic candidate – rather than be transparent – chose to repeat in a public forum a conversation they had with a person who may very well be the same source that the Tab used.
If I were the developer, I’d be giving “the source” their walking papers.
@Jane
You’re really misunderstanding this one.
The developer, via their source, likely floated an option on late Friday to gauge reaction. They got their reaction over the weekend and are now course correcting. They got exactly what they wanted.
Looks like Ted called this one exactly right.
@Paul: I read it very differently. Perhaps the mayor and/or the developer was trying to gauge public opinion. If that’s the case, it’s a shame that the TAB facilitated that process. I’d rather know what my mayor is up to without anyone doing advance work for him. Again, I don’t know if that’s what happened. Just one of many possibilities.
@Gail
How did you read it?
The TAB said the plan has been revised. Do you not believe that?
If it was a planted leak, I agree that it’s a shame that the TAB accommodated the request.
@Gail and Jane, there is a line from one of my favourite TV shows, The West Wing, which is apropos here. In an episode called “The Stackhouse Filibuster” Toby Zeigler asks Vice President Hoynes “What do you know that I don’t?” Hoynes answers, “Toby, the total tonnage of what I know that you don’t could stun a team of oxen in its tracks.”
All along Ted said he thought it was a “trial balloon” and it looks like that’s exactly what it was. There is no way for you to know the first source wasn’t actually a spokesperson for either the Mayor or the developer and the same person who has now “leaked” the revised version. Just because the Tab didn’t tell the source, a common practice in cases such as this one, doesn’t mean they didn’t know who the source was and their reliability.
I don’t know what happened. But if indeed the proposal was changed to accommodate more affordable units, then I’m glad the TAB did what it did. And Paul, it’s nice to see you advocating for more affordable units but why stop at 40? Let’s go for 300!
There has not been one statement in this thread that’s been anything other than speculation and gossip. Sorry, but we’re better than that, or so I thought. Once Marti, Paul, and Simon let us know who they are, then we have a shot at figuring out whether their speculations have any basis in the real world.
Ted-The West Wing was a TV show. This is the real world.
@Jane, I have a show for you: “Spin City.”
I have to agree with Jane. What troubles me about this endless thread is
“It is a taleTold by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.” or maybe pouring from the empty into the void, whatever.
We have a proposed project, years in the making, endless meetings and documents, that hopes to be approaching some sort of closure. Everyone knows how contentious it has been, how great the need for full communication and all are agreed that clarity and transparency are critical factors.
Then we get rumour, gossip, who is talking to whom, what are the numbers, how many units, and so on. None of the parties, which in this case would seem to be the developers (Dinosaur Partners/Scott Oran?) and the Administration (Newton executive department aka Mayor Warren) are being very careful, nor thorough, about clarity and communication. That is discouraging to those of us who might support this kind of project. It’s already a hard sell convincing some folks to even consider the project, but if the authors/sponsors can’t even do basic consistent communication then we may have a very dead horse here, go ahead and beat it if it makes you feel good.
HL Dewey, I am not sure that quote fits. Macbeth, having just learned that his wife is dead and knowing that the English armies are on their way to besiege the castle, was lamenting that life has no meaning and is full of contrived struggles:
I am not so disillusioned by this Comedy of Errors. Indeed, I think it has all turned out for the best. All’s Well That Ends Well.
@Ted – Aw, I wasn’t even trying to tie the whole plot, I just like the imagery of that line. I should have known you were one of those troublemakers in high school English class that actually read the play. Most of us were lucky if we made it all the way through Cliff’s Notes. For myself, I couldn’t even do that – no pictures, too boring. Classics Illustrated, that was my ticket, a familiar format consistent with my regular reading material. And the one publication that merited close study and constant re-reading: Mad Magazine.
HL Dewey, I used to put Mad Magazine inside of my schoolbooks so I could read it during class when we supposed to be studying the textbook. Spy vs. Spy was always my favorite.
No disrespect intended. I only latched onto it so I could have some fun with the names of a couple of Shakespeare’s comedies. It is an awesome line. Ask me about Shakespeare’s most quoted and oft most misunderstood line “First we must kill all the lawyers” sometime.
OK, I know I’m going to regret this, but go ahead, tell me about the lawyer quote. I promise I have not googled this in advance, but my totally WAG is either Measure for Measure or Merchant of Venice. So go ahead and hit me, I can take it.
Ted.
Isn’t that what this 40B business is all about. A token of understanding, an effort to do something. In reality it does not solve the problem (at least around here). But they will say you tried.
I was right – I’ve been had. Henry VI, are you kidding me, there cannot possibly be a Cliff’s Notes on that one, let alone Classics Illustrated. I guarantee you if you asked 100 English majors from randomly selected Ivy League schools that only one of them would even answer “yes” to the question “Did William Shakespeare or anyone else ever write a series of three plays about Henry VI and was there ever an English king named Henry VI and does anyone give a flying freak?.” You got me, how many rounds in how many bars have you collected on that one, over a period of how many years?
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html
@Simon – hey, get with it, can’t you see we’re having a cultural discussion here? It’s about Shakespeare, for pete’s sake, stifle yourself with the 40B nonsense for a few minutes will you? Some people have no respect. Unless you can supply the detailed citation for the lawyer refrence, in which case I bow down to your scholarship and wisdom.
Simon, Chapter 4oB has created 60,000 units of affordable housing. What have you done lately?
If we gonna talk culture at least I can say I used to cycle to Anne Hathaway’s cottage every now and then !!
As for the lawyer business sorry, can’t help!
Ted, on the 60,000 units perhaps we could get a little more localized. Do you have numbers more local to Newton?
Like how many places have been tore down, the prices developers paid for those tear downs? How many “Real Affordable Units” are out there? how many are really needed?
As for what I have done recently, not a whole bunch. Last fall volunatrilly spent many a weekend renovating a kids play ground. A couple of weeks ago I paid for materials and spent a couple of days making some cubby holes for kids school class room. I try to do my part.