I think this is a first. Village 14 has received a Letter to the Editor
Once Upon a Mattress (and a Refrigerator)
The Newton Tab article about the proposed housing development on the St. Philip Neri site in Waban last Wednesday and comments in public meetings about the project have suggested that the entire community is opposed and that the majority of concerns are about traffic and scale. We disagree.
We live in Waban. There is vocal opposition, but we also know many people who welcome the project. Traffic impact and building scale are legitimate concerns that the developer needs to address. What he cannot address, because U.S. fair-housing law forbids it, is the seeming determination of some opponents to prevent the people who might live in the development–48 renting households, a quarter of them low-income–from finding a home in Waban.
We have read in the TAB, heard first-hand at public meetings, or read in letters circulated among neighbors about fears over “changing the character of Waban,” over renters as “transient” and prone to distasteful habits like “storing old mattresses and refrigerators…in their balconies” and participating in “prostitution rings.” We have heard about a preference for “keeping Newton a certain class.” Unfortunately, this pernicious tone has been characteristic of recent conversations about Newton/Waban housing proposals. What must it be like for our neighbors currently living in rental housing to hear what some Newton residents assume about them?
We are concerned that some St. Philip Neri opponents seem to believe there is a single, unified view of housing and the “character” of Newton. This misunderstanding seems to make them feel justified–as they did last Wednesday night–in jeering, booing, and interrupting those who voice support for housing proposals that would address diversity in our community. We are reminded of the community meetings on Engine 6, two years ago.
People will inevitably have strong feelings about changes to their neighborhood, but we need to realize that the tenor of community conversations creates the climate in which housing proposals are considered. Respectful discourse that recognizes differences of opinion helps everyone make balanced decisions. Let’s get this right with St. Philip Neri, and proceed courteously, inclusively, and mindful of the imperatives of fair housing.
Dolores Acevedo-Garcia
Nanci Ginty Butler
Nice letter.
I attended the meeting with the intent of expressing overall support for the project as long a the developers worked closely with the abutters and nearby neighbors to make accommodations for them. Instead I chose to approach the developers to deliver that message after the meeting because delivering it publicly simply wouldn’t have been productive.
I’d also like to put in a plug for people who need to and prefer renting an apartment over owning a home. My son and his fiancee will rent for years to come because they have hefty student loans. I suspect they aren’t alone and that many people in their age range will have to defer buying a home for the same reason. They are responsible people who take part in their community on a regular basis. They have lived in their apartment for 4 years, and consider it their home.
During the year between selling and buying a home, we lived in an apartment in Newton and I loved it. With no household maintenance costs or stresses, it was much more economical than owning a home and freed up hours of time that I would have otherwise spent on the upkeep of a property. The apartment was located close to a village center that we walked to all the time and it close to many people we knew. Perhaps because I had this experience, I can imagine renting an apartment again in the future when maintaining a home is too much for one or the other of us. More importantly, if I have the good fortune of maintaining my health, renting an apartment is an option that will allow me to live independently in my home city for a longer period of time.
These stereotypes of renters are unbelievable. While I could understand them if this were sited by BC (student neighborhoods are a different kettle of fish altogether), I agree with Jane that there are many circumstances where renting makes sense for responsible adults. Growing up in Manhattan back in the day, most of my childhood friends and I lived in rentals. As an adult, there have been times when renting made more sense and did not magically transform me into a slovenly, mattress-storing (really?!) detriment to the neighborhood.
And lest we not forget, we have a few outside-mattress-storing homeowners too, in our fair city. Mattress-storing knows no bounds 🙂
By the way, I like the idea of periodically publishing guest posts that are submitted by folks other than our regular V14 contributors. In particular, if there’s a topic that we haven’t written about but should, consider writing one yourself and emailing it to us.
There’s no guarantee we’ll publish it as its own post, though we’ll try to accommodate. We may just suggest you add it as a comment to an existing thread. Arguably, this post (above) could have been a comment to an ongoing Phillips Neri thread but we thought we’d give this a try as its own post in hopes of stirring up some other contributors.
Rather than the standard Letter to the Editor format, aim more for a free-standing post on the topic of interest, modeled after those you see every day on Village14. For me personally, I’m a sucker for offbeat quirky stories and local history. Greg probably leans more towards whatever the current issue of the moment in Newton is, and all of us always likes news that they haven’t heard anywhere else. Send submissions to [email protected].
So, apparently seniors and now renters are not de rigueur in Newton. Anybody else we should be looking down our noses at?
@Ted Hess Mahan
Yes, those parents who come to Newton and put their kids in our schools.
Lawyers.
@Tom: Well played.
Touche. So, seniors, renters, school age children and lawyers. Anyone else? Anyone? Bueller?
Publishing this letter as it’s own topic, instead of a comment on another thread, was a very good decision, in my opinion. I think it’s a topic all it’s own and would have just been lost among the varied comments on other development threads.
It’s really good to hear from Waban residents who are being drowned out by opposition who do have a “single unified view of housing and character in Newton,” at least in Waban, and who use any tatic to spread fear of anything that doesn’t fit that view. It’s also hard for developers to have constructive meetings with communities to get feedback on actual modifications that might be an improvement.
Thank you for this wonderful letter that gets to the heart of the matter. I hope will serve as a challenge to all of us. This may seem like a small housing development, a matter of minor consequence. But as Acevedo-Garcia and Butler point out, the question of whether or not to be welcoming or exclusive to potential St. Philip Neri residents goes to the heart of who we are as people and as a city. I moved to Newton 15 years ago in part because of its reputation as an open-minded, socially concerned community. What I found here was quite the opposite. Public hearings that I have attended on such issues as affordable housing, school redistricting and the like are often marked by a seemingly unwitting snobbery, a self-satisfied assumption that the norms, habits and lifestyles of affluent, home-owning, rooted, family-raising, largely white suburbia are somehow superior to, say, the lifestyles of people and the people themselves who live (God forbid!) in rental housing or in multifamily housing, who, yes, may live here for a few years and then move on, who may not have the money or the desire to maintain a single family home, an expansive yard that, by the way, sucks up increasingly scarce resources in a way that multifamily housing does not. I ask those of you concerned with mattresses and refrigerators, to expand your imaginations. Consider this: Perhaps the people who will live in the St. Philip Neri complex have made choices to dedicate their careers, say, to helping other people as low-salaried social service workers. Perhaps they earn relatively low incomes because they chose careers as day care workers or as teachers of English as a Second Language. Perhaps their incomes are low because they’ve faced hardship in their lives and are now in school training to be a health care worker, who may care for your elderly parent one day. Perhaps one of the future residents is a teacher’s aide who will help your child in the classroom. Perhaps your new neighbors will be the people who can do things that you can’t do or things you don’t wish to do — things that are necessary in order for you to maintain your lifestyle even your health or your job. Perhaps they will fix your car, clean your teeth, draw your blood for medical tests, empty the trash in your office, cut your grass, change your babies’ diapers and read to your toddler while you work, scrub your toilet, deliver your take out food, or pick up the trash from the sidewalk in front of your single family home so that you don’t have to get your hands dirty. Newton’s prosperity, it’s beauty and the safety and order should make us all feel pretty lucky. But living here doesn’t make us better than anyone else. It seems easy for some folks in Newton to get lulled into forgetting a basic truth: W e all live in this world together.
Beautifully said, Susan. Thank you.
Thank you Susan for your wonderfully stated post. I want to believe that there are many more people like you residing in Newton.
@ Ted: Pedestrians seems to be pretty high on the list of undesirables, based on the poor condition of sidewalks (or their non-existance in many areas) and the apathy about clearing them in the winter. I’d say that seniors/retirees and school age children are more likely to be pedestrians, as are renters, who may be more likely to be walking to and from T and bus stops. Sidewalks tend to attract mattresses too.
(Of course we want the lawyers walking in the street – easier targets.)
I support the St. Philliip Neri projecct
Let me add to the list of undesirables: people who distort facts and mislead others.
I heard one comment from someone on the developer’s team this morning: “the height of the proposed building at 1521 Beacon won’t be that much different from the houses across the street: they tower over it”.
Yes It will be. Those houses are separated from the street by trees and open space. They are built on a hill. They do not start their height at street level. Comparing apples and oranges!!!
Renters are NOT the issue here: density, height and setback from the street are.
I agree that this “guest post” is a terrific way to get more people engaged and participating in the conversation than just a Letter to the Editor may. This is not just a Waban issue, but sets a tone and precedent that affects all of Newton.
Locations like the St. Philip Neri one are rare opportunities to provide much needed housing options that are close to a village center, public transportation, schools, shops etc. This sort of walkability helps reduce reliance on cars.
Newton needs diverse housing choices to meet a wide range of residents: rental, ownership, small units and large, meeting the demographics of seniors, families, younger workers, across all levels of affordability. We are a city of diverse people with different requirements.
Dolores and Nanci chose good examples that reveal an undercurrent of exclusivity and “snobbery” as Andy Levin wrote in the TAB. I heard two other stunning comments that led me to understand there is a pervasive lack of knowledge of Fair Housing Law, and the use of invalid reasoning for opposing this project.
Here’s my paraphrasing: 1. let’s keep this privately-owned parking lot as a community asset so we can teach children to ride bikes and drive cars there, and 2. say Wabanites are all wearing yellow T-shirts, and Shaquille O’Neil comes over and puts on a yellow T-shirt; he still doesn’t fit in.
Really?! Is that because he is former professional athlete and Waban doesn’t have those? Is it because he his taller than other Wabanites (the speaker tried to imply it is due to his size that he won’t fit in)? Or is that his skin color is darker than most people living in Waban?
Public comments reflecting exclusionary, discriminatory, prejudicial thinking don’t speak for most of us. Besides being narrow and mean, they are illegal.
a comment was removed from here because the poster did not use a valid email address and also appears to have posted previously under a different pseudonym.
Ted,
I am opposed to affordable housing in areas where the schools are overcrowded. I don’t oppose school age children coming into Newton as long as the cities infrastructure can handle the extra citizens/students (which includes traffic and parking). This is where I blame our local elected officials. When I oppose a project it’s because the due diligence on the infrastructure has not taken place. Where countryside can only carry 375 kids and is currently schooling 525, I don’t find it wise to place a 300 unit 40B project within it’s territory. That does not mean I (or anyone else) opposes school age children. We are looking out for the kids currently at the school and the kids entering the school.
One thing that would alleviate some of my concerns is if we gave voluntary scholarships to families who will educate their kids at charter or private school. I say this not because I oppose our public school system, because I love our schools, but because we owe it to the kids to give them the best possible education we can and adding onto a school that is already 40% over capacity isn’t allowing them to get the best possible education we can.
Placing affordable housing anywhere it fits is unwise and that is what I oppose. People who are trying to force feed us affordable units in areas where we shouldn’t have them. I am not commenting on whether Waban is one of those areas or not, this is a general remark that applies citywide.
(I know this will draw some backfire, so let me have it).
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife…
(Talking Heads, Once In A Lifetime, 1980)
I imagine that some homeowners in Waban bought their home as part of a package – as in, here is my beautiful house, on my beautiful street. I think that some of us are lucky enough to set down our roots where we choose: the propensity of single-family homes in a neighborhood may be a determining factor or it might matter more that you are close to the T, a downtown area, a local school, or your family lives nearby.
But that does not mean that the character of the neighborhood in which we find ourselves remains forever the same as when we moved into it, or that our ideal of beauty can or should be applied to our neighbor. The truth is that we actually have limited control over what really happens in our neighbors’ yards, whether we like it or not, including the building of rental properties. What we do have control over is how we choose to engage in dialogue with our neighbors – even if we don’t like their development choices – and what kind of community we want to partner in creating.
You can have your beautiful house, with your beautiful wife and large automobile, but my idea of a meaningful life might differ.
FYI: This “Joanne” is a different person from the Joanne who often comments here. New Joanne, we’re delighted to have us but to avoid confusion please select a different user name if you comment again (and I hope you will).
Susan Eaton, what a wonderful post. I hope we meet in person someday.
Video of this meeting is now online: http://youtu.be/miW5KE8Mrn0
People may want to watch and judge for themselves. I plan to. Looks like excellent audio & video quality, courtesy of Chris Pitts for the Waban Area Council.
Tom, I am not going to fire at you. The problem of overcrowding in the schools is often cited as a reason to oppose affordable housing projects and added density. But studies have consistently shown those concerns to be overstated.
In Newton, we have 32,000 units of housing and every year there is about a 5% turnover in ownership. People sell their homes for a lot of reasons, but if in a single year 5% of homeowners were empty nesters who sold to families with school age children there would be a virtual explosion in student enrollment. Would there be a hue and cry over letting families with children move into homes with no children? I doubt it. There would certainly be concern over the increase in the student population, and renewed calls to build or buy another school to accommodate more children. But no one would close the drawbridge and fortify the ramparts.
Would you or anyone seriously suggest we should pass a law or take action to prevent empty nesters from selling to children with families? No. And speaking as someone who moved my young family into a home vacated by an empty nester, I would fight you or anyone else who did propose such an outrageous, discriminatory law like a tiger until the end of my days. And when you look at the increased student enrollment both generally and at specific schools, for the most part it is not residential development but instead the natural, normal turnover in ownership of homes where kids grew up and moved on or moved out that are now inhabited by new, young families with children who want everything you and I want for the Newton public schools.
Folks, Newton is one of the most affluent, most fortunate communities in the Commonwealth and in the country. We don’t have to worry about children being shot on their way to school. We don’t have to worry about riots and looting. We don’t have to worry about a lack of potable water (which we have the first world privilege of watering our lawns and gardens with). We are located close to a large city, in a major metropolitan area, with some of the best schools, hospitals, arts, and natural resources, and where unemployment and crime are relatively low compared to other parts of the country. We can afford to have all of these things that so many other communities cannot, but in order to maintain that level of prosperity we enjoy, and knit the social fabric of our community together and prevent it from unraveling, we need housing. We need housing not just for the 1%, but also for people who earn a low to moderate income and are priced out of the market, not just here in Newton, but in many other communities throughout the Greater Boston metropolitan area.
The meanness in this community that has insinuated itself into the opposition to housing, and affordable housing in particular, is counterproductive and has got to stop.
Thank you Ted.
Question: I vaguely recall being told a long time ago that it was actually illegal for aldermen to consider the the potential number of school-aged children when looking at permits for residential developments. Is this true?
The meanness of some of the opposition has also been detrimental to useful discussion when there are legitimate concerns about whether a certain site is appropriate for a given use. The NIMBY’s and snobbishness tarnish all discussion.
@Ted
“We need housing not just for the 1%, but also for people who earn a low to moderate income and are priced out of the market, not just here in Newton, but in many other communities throughout the Greater Boston metropolitan area.”
I agree Ted, but as I wrote to Chris, adding several thousand units to high-cost communities doesn’t actually solve the larger problem of housing for those who need affordable housing. We’re being too arrogant in not learning the lessons of cities that have been dealing with this problem to a greater degree over the past few decades. The solution is not adding small pockets of housing. Its rapid mass transit. That should be our PRIMARY approach to housing policy, not a “feel good” approach that we added a couple of buildings but didn’t actually solve the problem.
When you couple the ineffectiveness of the chosen housing policy with its consequences on changing our density, traffic, incremental increase in school population, etc.– that is the reason to oppose it. If it actually the solved the problem, that would be one thing, but it doesn’t. It may make some people feel good, you’re clearly one of them, but at a macro-level, little has changed.
As for giving some identifying information– how is this: Before moving to Newton, I CHOSE to live in two buildings in the city where some units were affordable housing, because I liked the buildings and didn’t care that some units were affordable. So enough with the high-mindedness that opponents look down on those that need affordable housing. Can any of you– Ted, Gail, Greg, Jane, etc.– say that you’ve actually done that? You’re the ones that have closed yourselves off for the past couple of decades living in Newton- not me.
@Paul: Saying adding several thousands units of affordable housing doesn’t solve our housing problem, is easy to say, unless you’re one of several thousand people who need a place to live and could benefit from one of those units.
Or a person with any kind of compassion.
Or even a selfish person who realizes that having a community with a diverse housing stock is good economics.
But then again, I’m guessing you’re one of those people who never contributes a can of tuna to a food drive because it won’t end world hunger.
May I suggest viewing the video http://www.wabanareacouncil.com/issue/1521-beacon-st-development-st-philip-neri-site
We began future planning in Waban earlier this year to work together to better understand all the issues that impact our quality of life. Better planning, thinking through proposals for their long term effects, and understanding how all the connected issues are impacted, is more important now than any previous time in Newton’s history. Nothing can be added in our city without subtracting something else. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Brookline, it behooves us to pay attention.
Thanks Chris. I’ve embedded the video here as part of a separate thread.
Paul – I moved to Newton when a teacher and an engineer could afford to buy a house here in our mid 30’s. The house hadn’t been lived in for 10 years and was so run down that it had been on the market for 2 years. We could see its potential, so we bought it and renovated it ourselves over 25 years. Before that, all of our living situations were most definitely affordable (Somerville before it was the 2015 version of Somerville) so that we could save to buy a house. It’s hardly an unusual story. It’s how most of my friends got here.
BTW, I don’t really care where you or anyone else used to live. The question is why you are so personally invested in this topic? Most posters have a few pet issues but are open and transparent about why an issue is so important to them. As an example, for years one of my pet issues has been the condition of the elementary buildings because I worked in them for 35 years in 3 communities and every building I ever worked in was in decrepit condition. So I advocate for that. What is your story? You can’t just keep writing nasty posts and remain so secretive and have any credibility.
Brookline is a great community, Chris. It behooves us not to demean our neighboring towns and cities.
Jane, you’ve made your point. If Paul or others don’t wish to give a personal bio, nobody is going to force them to. And if that gives them less credibility, then that’s a credit to your arguments.
I know some other people who used to feel uncomfortable identifying themselves on the blogs… remember?
@Ted,
Regarding you last statement, we seem to do a lot of speculation around here.
The city must have a vast amount of statistical data. Do you have it, and if so can you share it?
It would be great to have a set of Facts.
Do I actually have to point out that when “empty nesters” move out after their children complete local schooling and are replaced by households with school-aged children, that’s a net increase in school-aged children of approximately zero, not a 5% increase?
Greg of the Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development officers, Ted, etc: Are you as disingenuous as you appear, or truly deluded by and being played like a violin by developers? There are solutions to the moral and economic issue of justice in housing that don’t involve a 85/15 ratio of unwanted unaffordable housing.
The straw man arguments and fantasies where minimum-wage retail clerks can afford even the “affordable” units are laughable. I suspect you’ve never lived as an adult on minimum wage, or known anyone who did, if you believe that. You’re off by orders of magnitude. You could look it up, or use a calculator to figure it out.
Of course, if you ask me or any other aging residents what their vision for the future is, they’d like to live independently in a lovely first-floor condo in a village center (preferably in Florida, but whatever). Amazingly, no one lists among their aspirations having a stroke, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, debilitating falls, etc. However, there are statistics available that distinguish the reality of aging homeowners’ outcomes from our imaginary scenarios. They aren’t included in the 9/14 “needs assessment” precisely because they wouldn’t serve the agenda of the developers.
As long as no one addresses the insider deals at citizen expense, the ubiquity of certain ultra-connected individuals behind all the shell corporations and partnerships, the (at least) gross appearance of corruption, then all the development discussions here contribute to the smoke screen that benefits developers and, to the minimum possible extent, a few token beneficiaries to maintain the illusion that 40B is an “affordable housing” law and not a boon to developers. Yes, they give a metaphorical can of tuna on their way to the bank. The can of tuna is good, but not if it is part of the system that makes most people hungrier.
OK, continue to pretend I didn’t say that, or you that don’t understand. I’m out. Nothing’s going to change here.
Just to be clear @Jane, I was not denigrating Brookline at all, rather pointing out they are facing issues that Newton is set to replicate. I have learned a great deal from speaking with their School Committee, examining developments, and reviewing documents. Again, we would be foolish to ignore first hand information from our sister city.
@APC – You’re an anonymous commenter, making various vague but very serious accusations of corrupt and/or criminal behavior by some number of unnamed public officials and private citizens without presenting any facts.
What is there to comment on?
Adam – Though I didn’t provide my first name until recently, I’ve always been very open about who I was, my connection to NPS, and areas of the city where I’ve lived in. When this blog begins to sound like the comment section of a Boston.com article (and it has at points) then the forum as a whole loses credibility.
At this point, V14 is a helpful and timely source for events in the city, but the discussions threads are repetitive and not particularly engaging. That’s particularly unfortunate with the local paper having had so many cutbacks in recent years.
@APC, your logic is flawed. An empty nester, by definition, has zero children in the public schools. When said empty nester sells to a family with, say, two school age children who then enter the public schools, the net increase in student enrollment is +2. I cannot comment on your developer conspiracy theories because I am not aware of any, but I can confirm that after college I was working with people with disabilities for well under $10,000 a year.
@Paul and Simon, I am not sure what it would take to persuade either of you that creating affordable housing in Newton is worthwhile, so I will not try. But I can provide you with anecdotal evidence that residential development alone does not drive student enrollment. In the ten years I had kids at Horace Mann, the student population increased by 150 students, but there was no corresponding net increase in the number of housing units, affordable or otherwise. Occam’s razor suggests the increase in student enrollment was the result of a corresponding increase in the number of kids per household within the district.
@Gail, if I understand your question, yes, fair housing laws prohibit discrimination against families with children. In reviewing a special permit for a large residential development, the Board of Aldermen frequently does look at enrollment projections and net fiscal impact when considering conditions required to mitigate the impact of a project. But a denial on based solely on the fact that families with children would move in would provide instant grounds for an appeal. As with any special permit, we must base our decisions on the criteria specified in the ordinance when granting or denying a special permit.
APC – By any measure, your post was totally out of line. Did it ever occur to you that it’s highly unethical to make serious accusations as an (yet another) anonymous poster who doesn’t have the courage to stand up for his/her beliefs? It’s pretty easy to make these accusations when you don’t have to answer for them or take responsibility for them.
@Greg
“Saying adding several thousands units of affordable housing doesn’t solve our housing problem, is easy to say, unless you’re one of several thousand people who need a place to live and could benefit from one of those units.”
From an ETHICAL perspective, this is a sound argument. Affordable housing is a moral issue, and we should pursue multiple approaches to make that feasible.
From a POLICY perspective, this is a poor judgment. Local affordable housing as a policy, is inherently personal, with impact on people’s actual neighborhoods. As a result, support for this type of policy has the added burden of not only needing to be supported in the abstract, but supported in reality. As we’ve seen in Newton, even for those who theoretically support this housing policy generally, if its THEIR neighborhood being impacted, people frequently have a different opinion. Its classic cognitive dissonance– no one acknowledges the hypocritical nature of their support– they support it as long as its just not in THEIR neighborhood, so instead they identify specific reasons why a housing project doesn’t make sense in that particular case. The pattern here is very well-established. As a good policy-maker, this should be known upfront, recognizing the tremendous political capital and emotional energy that is expended with this type of policy. These policies have a very high opportunity cost as a result. That cost includes impairing the ability to build support for other housing policy, such as large public investments in mass transit to enable more affordable housing for all.
So from a policy perspective, if you’re concerned about maximizing affordable housing, prioritizing your implementation strategy is important. You CAN”T do everything, and some policies have broader consequences. Starting with a policy that has leads to few new units of affordable housing with tangible impact on the citizenry is a poor approach. It feels good, but actually harms a larger group from benefiting from a more effective policy.
PS Again, your mean-spirited approach just isn’t necessary. There isn’t a need to “guess” that I’m not a charitable person or implying I’m not compassionate if I don’t agree with you. This post started with a letter highlighting the importance of “respectful discourse”– you would be well-served to heed the advice.
@Ted
“But I can provide you with anecdotal evidence that residential development alone does not drive student enrollment.”
Of course that is the case. No question the variation you cite above, 5% turnover, plus additional turnover from renters providers the greatest variation in year-by-year student enrollment. At the same time, its irrefutable that with every housing unit in Newton, there is some probability that it will be occupied with school-age children. More housing units = more school-age children. Just because there are larger factors at play that our housing supply doesn’t mean that we should ignore factors that are in our control.
That doesn’t mean that considering this factor requires you to oppose new housing. But it does require you to plan. Its highly problematic that while we are planning new schools– right now– there are no assumptions being made about the number of new housing units expected and its impact on necessary school size. We are right now literally planning a new Cabot School with a projected school size, and at the same time planning new housing units in the district– and THESE TWO PLANNING PROCESSES ARE COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED. If we had a thoughtful housing policy plan for the city, that was explicit about objectives, it could be factored into school planning. Right now, our heads are in the sand, and we blindly build schools without regard for future housing supply. Its a policy planning failure.
@Ted,
I am not against affordable housing. When we talk affordable house what I am against (and it seems I am closely aligned with Paul on this), is that for every affordable unit that gets created, 4 additional market rate ones appear too. Its an absurd notion to think we are solving affordable housing in this manor.
Why is it these complexes need to be high end? Do affordable units really need granite counters, Kohler faucets etc? No. Could they create additional units if they were a little more fiscal – probably.
@Simon, affordable housing costs money and there are only 3 ways it gets built, and we do all three in Newton. Real estate prices in Newton are high, but no matter where you build it, affordable housing that is sold or rented at below market rate requires subsidies. You can pay for it with public funds, you can mandate that a certain percentage of units in every residential development are affordable, or you give private and nonprofit developers an incentive to subsidize affordable units with market rate units by allowing them to get around local zoning restrictions, or some combination of all three. Real estate is super expensive in Newton so it costs more per unit to build, requiring a deeper subsidy than elsewhere. Over the past 5 years, fewer than 10 units have been built with public funds, and a handful of units have been built pursuant to Newton’s 15% inclusionary ordinance. The lion’s share have been built because of 40B. If you have a better idea, go for it. I am all ears. But provide a financial pro forma so we can all check your figures.
I have actually been involved in creating affordable units, and, no, it is not high end faucets, counters or appliances that are driving the cost. Maybe you should come see some of the units CAN DO or the NHA has built before you make such rash generalizations. These are economically efficient units that are usually smaller than market rate units and do not have luxurious fittings, but they are quality housing that is safe, sanitary and decent as the affordable housing laws require and are built to last. I can arrange a tour for you if your would like.
Paul, I agree that planning is required. The Mayor has proposed a multi-year planning effort to create a housing production plan. If the city remains focused on that we can provide quality education and create housing.
Simon, if you have ever been a landlord of a development with affordable housing, then you would better understand why “near” high end appliances and other finishes are installed. The main reason is money. It costs much less in maintenance and replacement costs using high end than cheaper finishes over time and when the housing is built, it doesn’t cost much more to purchase better quality at wholesale in volume.
“The Mayor has proposed a multi-year planning effort to create a housing production plan.”
Has he signed on to my docket item? I don’t think so. I think you mean he has a goal to produce a certain number of housing units – was it 800? within a specified time period but he and the planning department have not endorsed creating a housing production plan that would be submitted to DHCD for approval and would also give us an opportunity to decline 40B proposals.
@APC @Paul @Patrick (if you’re reading this thread). You have a lot of fans among Newton residents who think your analysis and your comments make a lot of sense. If you are interested in connecting with Newton residents who share your concerns about development policy and process in Newton, would you send a quick email to [email protected]
@Simon: I’m a big fan of community advocacy groups working to make our city better, even if/when I don’t agree with the agenda, any effort to get people involved is a plus.
And if you create a website, let us know and we will add it to our blogroll.
I just hope your group doesn’t make the same mistake as the Newton Village Alliance has by keeping your leadership secret.
Amy, I should have called it a housing strategy. The contract for a consultant to assist the planning department in creating a housing strategy was sent out to bid and has been awarded to RKG Associates.
Ted,
Is this the new fact of Zoning Reform Phase II?
meant face not fact
Is this our future? Just checked RKG Associates website and see this, from client Alexandria, VA. http://www.rkgassociates.com/services/projects/housing%20market%20analysis.html Makes me think of Moscow, somehow. (Russia, not Idaho.) You all think four and half stories is high!
Middletown, CT is on the RKG website a few down from the top. If they were involved in revitalizing downtown Middletown, then I think that instead of just consulting on a housing plan, the town give them a crack at a plan for Newtonville.
We lived in Glastonbury, CT when my kids were growing up and went to Middletown frequently. It has always been a pretty town, sitting on the CT River since the 1600’s, but as old towns sometimes do, it had lost some of its appeal, even with Wesleyan University’s beautiful campus and it’s draw of great professors and students.
Now it is back to, or has surpassed, it’s previous luster and it also retains it’s 1600 character. It’s Main Street won most romantic stroll in 2011and it’s packed with shops, cafés and other places where people like to get together. My daughter and her friends call it a “destination” town which to them means a town that’s worth the drive for its amenities.
(No I do not work for their chamber of commerce.)