Tags: Thanks to my Newton Villages Alliance colleague Ron Mauri, for actually reading and calling attention to the provisions of the “Ground Lease Preliminary Term Sheet” signed by Mayor Warren and Austin Street Partners on May 12, 2015. It was sent to the members of the Board of Aldermen on that same day, as an attachment to the announcement of the filing of the Austin Street Special Permit. However, it does not seem to have ever been posted on the city website.
In posting it on the Newtonville listserve, Ron notes that, outside of the public process:
It seems, however, that there is an ongoing parallel not-so-public process between the Mayor and the developer…. It is curious that the Mayor has executed this agreement prior to the approval of the Special Permit, particularly given some of its provisions.
Although this ‘term sheet’ says that it’s not intended to be a legally binding agreement to lease, it contains what seem like significant concessions the mayor is willing to make. There’s no indication that the Board of Aldermen has been consulted on these terms, just informed after the fact.
One notable provision is:
Lease Term: Ninety Nine (99) years from the Commencement Date. Tenant shall have an option to extend the Lease Term for up to an additional Ninety Nine (99) years.
As Ron notes, that’s it. There’s no mention of what the lease payment would be for a renewal, or if there would be any payment at all. And it would be an unrestricted option for the Tenant (presumably Austin Street Partners — but more on that below) to renew; the city would have no option not to renew.
Think about it. The “ground lease” was supposed to be more palatable than an outright sale, a way for the city to retain ownership of the land, but suddenly the time period has doubled, without any public discussion. One hundred ninety-eight years. That’s like from the Declaration of Independence in 1776, to almost the Bicentennial.
There’s more. As Ron notes:
What if the Special Permit is not approved? There is another section “APPROVAL PERIOD” that addresses this possibility. It’s a long section, but here is a key provision contained in the fourth paragraph: “If at the end of the Initial Approval Period …the Tenant has not yet obtained the Permits and Approvals for the Project…then the Landlord and the Tenant shall enter into …negotiations…for amendments to the Development Agreement … to develop the Project or a different project at the Lease Parcel.” What the “different project” might become given this section is unclear, but the mayor and the developer believed specifying an option to continue this non-public process is an important enough contingency to include it in this
document.
I’m wondering about other provisions, like:
Landlord shall be responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments or similar charges affecting the Reserved Rights.
“Reserved Rights” refers to the city retaining rights to the parking spaces, so it appears that property taxes paid by Tenant would be reduced by some amount reflecting the value of the parking lot, leaving it up the the Assessor’s Office to apportion the value between building and land, and making actual property tax revenue from the project uncertain.
Also:
Tenant may mortgage Tenant’s leasehold interest in the Lease Parcel.
This sounds like ASP could borrow on the property as if they owned it outright. So if they defaulted on their mortgage, the city could end up with a totally different Tenant?
And the mentions of “provisions for confidentiality and indemnification” that would survive any termination of the Development Agreement: why should anything be confidential about leasing public property, and who would be indemnifying whom for what?
I read this after Ron Mauri posted it on the Newtonville listserv last night. I also read the Zoning Review Memorandum dated May 5, 2015. I emailed these questions to the clerk, David Olson, to be forwarded to the Alders.
I have additional questions for the Alderpersons, after having read the Zoning Review Memorandum from May 15, 2015. And concerning the Mayor’s having signed an intent to lease.
1. Why are there not 17 units deed restricted for persons earning up to 80% AMI as has been published?
1a. Why are there only 10 “affordable” units?
1b. Why is there no income limit listed for the 10 units?
1c. Why are there 7 units for up to 120% AMI instead of 17 units for people earning up to 80%AMI?
1d. Why is the public being deceived about these units?
2. Why would a waiver requirement for a parking plan be issued when having one is a reasonable requirement?
3. Why would the lighting requirements for parking lots be waived? How can it be safely used in the dark?
4. Where are the employees of the new businesses to park if there are only 5 stalls included for them if the rest are
waived?
5. Why would the requirement for bicycle parking facilities be waived when the HubWay is being used as a selling
point? Or if it is not waived, why would they be allowed to take up the public plaza area?
6. Why allow a restaurant with more than 50 seats in such a small area? Where would the additional employees park?
7. Why has the Mayor already signed an intent to lease?
Why does it include a “tenant option to lease for an additional 99 years” with no option for the city to require
additional funds or have an option to refuse another lease. That is effectively giving the land away.
Thank you
End
The big question, rolling around in my brain, is one I have been trying to suppress since 2014, hoping for the answer to be revealed before I had to consider it. Unfortunately, it is time, past time, to give it credence.
Why are the Mayor, City Staff, assuredly some members of the BOA and the public deceiving most of the residents of Newton?
This signed preliminary term sheet that was not included in the special permit documents on the city’s website, along with the other ones, all of which I have read, and the clear differences between what is being presented and what is true are the proverbial straws for me. My cognitive dissonance has reached such heights that I am beginning to fear for my sanity and I have to release a belief.
This is still on the city website:
“The Applicant proposes to redevelop the existing municipal parking lot with a mixed-use residential building that includes 68 units of rental housing (25% of which will be deed restricted as affordable) …”
Austin Street: Good concept + poor execution = bad deal for Newton.
It’s time to back up, start over again, and try to get it right the next time around.
I am totally confused, why would any elected official in Newton agree to this for us? I’m not being facetious, this just all seems so awful.
I’m not sure that I understand some of these concerns.
The term sheet was set up for the City to continue being responsible for the public parking spaces. It seems only fair that ASP not be held responsible for the real estate taxes on that portion of the land.
Of course ASP was going to get mortgage debt to help pay for the project. It’s very common for a ground lease to allow for mortgage financing. Yes, that means if ASP defaults, the bank ends up as the tenant to the City.
I assume the negotiated term sheet will give ASP the right to transfer ownership of the project to another party, subject to some restriction. They are not going to be around for 200 years.
It’s not that I think the project is perfect. (It’s not perfect.) But it’s better than the ugly, under-used parking lot.
I don’t have the energy right now to address all the questions, and some of them probably do need some clarifications. But I think a good portion of these issues are not really big deals, and a short term sheet wouldn’t be a typical place to get into them. As such, I don’t buy into the “intent to deceive” statements above. Look, any deal needs oversight by the BOA and the Mayor, but the number of and the restrictions on the affordable units will match what ASP has said publicly in the end. I’d encourage everyone to take a deep breath.
As an example, one of Julia’s points about is about mortgaging the leasehold interest. This is very typical, and is no different in function than a fee owner of the parcel putting a mortgage on it. It is a long term ground lease. The project will be financed with bank debt, like EVERY other project basically ever. That bank will ask for a mortgage on the land interest and the building improvements once built. Here, the land interest is a leasehold interest, and not a fee interest, since it is owned via a long term ground lease. If the city puts in a requirement that the leasehold interest can’t be mortgaged, then effectively they are eliminating commercial bank debt as a financing option, which would frankly be unheard of.
Regarding the landlord paying the taxes on the parking portion, not sure what the object is there. I would have expected that, since the developer doesn’t maintain the use. Not unusual either.
Regarding the section that the parties have the right to renegotiate if the project isn’t approved, what did anyone expect it to say? ASP has invested time and money, don’t you think they’d take another bite at the proposal apple if their first attempt is rejected? What is the harm in that, besides those folks who are looking to kill the project completely and don’t want to have it adapt to something that might be acceptable to the BoA?
As for the term having a renewal, that is very typical as well. It won’t be for free, more often is it either at FMV or includes a provision for evaluating the worth of the leasehold and a certain reduction off such evaluation. I think folks think a ground lease gives more control than it actually really does. A 99 year lease is a LONG time. You get more control over some issues, but it is not really as is the city expects to get this back in 99 years. This is about maintaining certain rights in the land for the leasehold. You could also accomplish this with easements or a recorded agreement against the land. Either way works.
Julia points out that the term sheet confirms that it is isn’t a binding intent to lease. It is laying out basic terms. This is not the key document. It is a process. Ask your friendly real estate lawyer if you disagree to give some comments. I’m confident they will say the same. Perhaps THM could speak up.
This doesn’t detract from the business deal being sub-par, or my frustration with the process. But the objections above on the document shown feels more like folks looking for problems than actually finding real ones.
One final thing, as it has come up with my neighbors and friends a few times. This isn’t a choice about building a playground, or a theatre, or a community center in that space. I’d love that. Sounds great to me. But unless this city comes into a lot more money, can anyone really think that is a possibility? This is a choice between the parking lot as is, and a development plan. You want to argue for another development plan? Have at it. But considering the requirements put on the lot by the City and the various passionate folks already, the project needs to be a certain height and size, or it needs to apply for public funds from other sources that it is likely not to receive anytime soon.
My guess is that if ASP proposal gets shot down by the BoA this lot will stay undeveloped for another decade. At some point, more communities should take the good now verse the perfect in the future. This ain’t perfect. But the ugly lot isn’t perfect either. If the parking is preserved, I’m having trouble coming up with negatives for my village if the sale proceeds are used to improve the village center. If we get to spruce up the village, buy utilities along Austin Street, improve the sidewalks, keep the parking, building some affordable housing, I think it is a net positive. And I live and walk to this village every day. Perfect, no way. Better than the lot. Yes. And I’m hoping the proposal will improve along the way.
My point about the lease term is that it is effectively a sale (even more so than a 99-year lease!), although the switch from an outright sale, to a lease, was portrayed as a concession to public opinion about not selling city assets.
Regarding the taxes, I agree that you would not necessarily expect ASP to pay taxes on the land used as a city parking lot, but the need to apportion taxes between the building and the land it sits on, and the parking lot (by the way, how are those undercover spaces treated?) introduces another level of subjectivity. Many people think ASP had an inside track on being selected. My impression is the Assessor’s office is very apolitical, but will that always be the case? I’m not aware of other situations where the taxes would be allocated like this. (Maybe Warren House — the former Warren Jr. High School?)
On the mortgage question, I was not concerned so much with the construction financing period, but at the open-ended option for presumably the whole lease term, to do the equivalent of a home equity loan, i.e. new borrowing using the building as collateral long after the construction loan was paid off.
Regarding the persistent “ugly parking lot” complaint, people may not be aware that if the city followed its own zoning regulations regarding parking lots, the Austin Street lot would already have a canopy of trees, one for every 10 parking spaces. This is what the ordinance says:
fignewtonville and doug c make sense here.
No project will be perfect but this deal should get done and move on.
Why should the deal just get done?
Here is the final paragraph from the original RFI document
“OBSERVATIONS
This exploration of reuse of this parking lot is not about gaining an ordinary piece of development to pay a little bit in taxes, it is about trying to make Newtonville’s village center a much better place. Anything less than achieving the “Excellence in Place- Making” repeatedly exhorted in the City’s 2007 Comprehensive Plan will mean a failure to have captured a special opportunity. Achieving that excellence will require that a variety of participants strive for it in every aspect of this effort, including this one.”
How exactly does this development fulfill this?
Affordable housing advocates talk about affordable housing, others talk about parking. What is it about this project that is going to put a “spark” back into Newtonville?
I feel the need to clarify my questions a bit.
I posted them on this thread as it was the most recent one on the subject and only drew my last question from the document Julia is quoting. I’m not concerned about anything else in it.
My questions are from the Zoning Review Memo (received 5/22/15 by David Olson) from Jane Santosuosso, Chief Zoning Code Official and Alexandra Ananth, Chief Planner for Current Planning Department to John Lojek and cced to James Freas, Planning and Development and ASP.
It is based on the documents in the Special Permit Application for zoning relief dated 4/21/15, which would be up to date.
This report is a required before the first public hearing as part of the Special Permit Process.
“The Planning Department provides the Land Use Committee with a written report on each application prior to the Public Hearing. Plans, reports and other documents relating to each Special Permit application are available to the public at the Clerk’s office and are posted on the City website.”
Fignewtonville,
“Perhaps THM could speak up.”
Now that the Special Permit has been filed, Alderpeople are not supposed to listen to or take part in discussions of the proposal, except as a committee, as they have to remain impartial and only consider if the application meets “the standards and criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance” of the MU4 zoning of the land either by right or by waiver. He and others have explained numerous times there will not be any major changes to a proposal once the Special Permit Application has been filed. That time has passed.
In making this decision the BOA is not acting as representatives of their constituents, they are acting in a quasi-judicial manner and their decisions “on land use petitions are required to be based upon information obtained by the Board about the special permit/site plan approval petition.”
There seems to exist a confusion about when the BOA is acting as a legislative vs judicial body and what that means. It could be that combination of duties should come up in the charter review, should there be one.
“Look, any deal needs oversight by the BOA and the Mayor, but the number of and the restrictions on the affordable units will match what ASP has said publicly in the end.”
It is good you are confident about this because it doesn’t appear in writing. What is in writing, in the report, is that the Inclusionary Zoning Regulation calls for 15% Affordable Units and that ASP’s application complies by having 10 units, without specifying the percentage of AMI to be required. ASP is offering to deed restrict 7 units with income limits of 120% AMI.
It is a good thing “we have oversight by the BOA,” because the Mayor, and even the City Legal Department, as was repeatedly said by BOA members at the last meeting, are considered to be on ASP’s support team. Independent counsel was requested to represent the BOA.
My comment on “deceit” is not a related to any conspiracy theories on this subject.
It is only related to facts.
In 2014, we were told repeatedly that a proposal was not selected, just a developer, with quotes from the Mayor, Candace Havens (Planning Director), Scot Oran, Alderman Lipoff (Land Use) and others.
Mayor Warren will not begin “land disposition” negotiations to sell or lease the municipal lot on Austin Street until those parameters have been established, he said.
We were told there would be public meetings in the fall of 2014 to provide input and receive info on a new proposal.
The “new proposal” of 2015 turned out to be the same one that we were told had not been selected.
It was presented by both the Mayor and the developer.
The same proposal continued to be presented, unchanged until the Special Permit Application was submitted on May 12, 2015.
The proposal submitted with the application had revisions that had not been presented in public which precludes being able to require any major changes.
And to add to Marti’s list:
The Mayor explicitly promised community meetings AFTER agreeing to terms with Austin St Partners but BEFORE submitting the proposal to BOA. That did not happen.
The Mayor has been dishonest at multiple points in this process, and does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on the questions raised by Marti. They may be addressable, but they need to be addressed.
Its disheartening that supporters can’t seem to even acknowledge the Mayor’s grave failings in this process.
I have to give credit to you Paul. You have a lot of chutzpah!
One would need a lot of chutzpah to come onto this blog at 8:02 p.m. on Tuesday June 9 and complain about a lack of community input about Austin Street while at the VERY SAME HOUR a public hearing on Austin Street was taking place!
For several hours last Tuesday and for three hours tonight the community provided input. At the conclusion of tonight’s community input meeting Land Use Chair Loredo assured the community that there would be MUCH MORE opportunity for community input and that the community input process will stretch into December!
Some might wonder how someone so obsessed about a scarcity of community input could be off blogging instead of contributing their own community input at the public meeting that he’s complaining about there not being enough of.
The only answer I can come up with is, that person has a lot of chutzpah.
@Greg
You ever heard of a smartphone? One can do two things at once.
I credit Alderman Laredo (it’d be nice if you had enough respect to spell his name correctly) for trying to ensure community input. That in no way excuses the Mayor from not honoring his commitments that he offered during the process.
He has been dishonest, and you’re worried about my chutzpah?
Hello?
Can you be any more irrelevant and petty?
How about focusing on the issues that matter? Like the Mayor being dishonest with Newton throughout this process?
PS You’d benefit from reading more closely. I didn’t complain about lack of community input. I complained about the Mayor promising something, and then not actually doing it.
Its dishonest. But you’re more worried about an anonymous commenter’s chutzpah.
My apologies for misspelling Laredo.
But really, Paul, how much more talking about this do we need? Why did we need another round of meetings for “input” once the revised proposal was released? What more is there to say about this that shouldn’t be said through this extended special permit process. What good could have possibly come from it?
I think it’s pretty safe to say that the vast majority of the public that are going to have formed an opinion about this have and aren’t changing their minds no matter how many pre-meetings we had.
It’s time to let the aldermen do the work we’ve elected them to do, which is to vet the application, suggest modifications and then either support it or not.
But we should have had more meetings before these meetings? Geesh.
You’re looking for criticism of the mayor? Well here goes, the mayor was wrong to suggest that there should be be another round of community hearings before the Land Use process began. It was a bad idea. Good for him for modifying the process.
As far as I know you are the only person who keeps harping on wanting yet more meetings about this. Other than using that as a delay tactic to keep the project from ever being built, perhaps you can explain why you think this other round of community meetings would have been good for Newton?
@Greg,
Again. I’m not focused on the meetings. I’m focused on the dishonesty.
Its not just meetings. The Mayor also promised that the negotiated proposal would be reviewed by “several advisory groups” prior to consideration by the BOA. Where are those advisory groups? Where are their reviews?
Remember, these promises were made in the context of selecting Austin St Partners “just the developer, not the project”– that was transparently dishonest as the project didn’t really change. Just as it was dishonest to put multiple bidders through a detailed proposal process, and then at the last minute say that the Mayor was simply choosing the developer but not the project.
Its been lies on top of lies.
The issue is the Mayor’s continued dishonesty in this process. Not the meetings. I don’t know how much clearer I can be.
Just answer the question Greg–
You seriously don’t believe the Mayor has been dishonest in this process?
Really?
And I say, thank heavens we all didn’t have to endure all those additional steps of review committees, community meeting, dots, and more blah, blah, blah. No one is changing his or her mind now. Let the board vet the project, ask smart questions, review the parking and traffic studies, propose modifications if deemed appropriate and then…. let the clerk call the roll call.
Yea or nay.
As for my critique of Mayor Warren on this? I’m sorry this process has taken this long on his watch. I’m glad he ultimately choose to not make it any longer.
You really won’t answer the question?
Do you believe the Mayor has been dishonest during this process?
Paul – Not only are your posts a prime example for why it’s time to require full names on this blog, but your anonymous personal attacks alienate people.
Greg- I find it odd that you’re complaining about the endless comments on this project, when V14 continues to present threads on it every week. Everything that can be said about it has been said hundreds of times, here and elsewhere. Perhaps more importantly, discussions on V14 sound more and more like the comment section of a Boston.com article and are no longer enlightening, informative, or interesting.
If the aldermen are going to be taking public comment into December, there is still more to be said. I would hope that the aldermen haven’t already made up their minds on something they won’t be voting on for several months. I expect many more discussions on Village 14, even if some of the comments are redundant.
Redundant I don’t mind. Personal attacks cross a line. It’s hard to figure out what V14 is thinking when one of its originators complains about that “blah, blah, blah” and “No one is changing his or her mind now” and all the while, V14 posts thread after thread about the very same topic. I understand that you all have different viewpoints.
I can’t for the life of me figure out how someone who attacks others anonymously and relentlessly can claim to have any integrity at all.
When I wrote “no one is changing his or her mind now” or “blah, blah, blah” I was responding to the call for another round of community meetings BEFORE the Land Use process began. I am so glad Mayor Warren choose not to subject us to this.
I do believe that most of the members of the general public who are likely to ever have an opinion about Austin Street have made up their minds. That’s very different from what our aldermen need to do. I expect and want our board members to really dig into details, scrutinize the terms of the lease, the parking studies and so many more of the specifics. That’s their job and their responsibility. I expect they will do so with their usual professionalism.
Having parallel discussions here, on the TAB oped page, during the upcoming election season, on street corners, etc. don’t delay the the work Land Use needs to do so I see no reason to discourage them.
But please no more dots on poster boards and no more ADDITIONAL community meetings.
@Greg
Your silence on the question of the Mayor’s dishonesty during this process speaks volumes.
I do not think he has been dishonest. I do wish he could have done more to speed up this process.
I find it offensive to have someone on this blog calling our mayor dishonest and a liar, and not having the courage to let him/her self be known.
Agree.
I was at the Aldermanic meeting last night. It was impressive to see so many come out to speak for and against the ASP. I have to say, it is probably the most open and transparent moment of the long whole process. But the question of a lease deserves more attention. For many, signing the lease may be routine, but signed in the middle of the debate regarding the special permit, is a surprise. For those who oppose the project (and I am one) it sends the message (intended or not) that this is a done deal.
The statements last night made it clear that there are still serious considerations about the project: the big box feel and a four story building right on the edge of narrow Austin Street; the changes such a building will bring to a neighborhood divided (at best) about the project; the, for all intents and purposes, giving away of public land (I know, I know, it’s a lease; but 99 + 99 years? That is no longer public land. And as one opponent brought up last night, the materials and durability of this building seem out of step with a 99+ year lease); and the concern about below ground infrastructure and who will deal with additional costs to repairs if needed. The BoA will have to weigh all these concerns, and more, as they make their decision. I have to say, though, that without a cost/benefit analysis, it feels like all discussion is in purgatory with no place to go until we see that.
Whatever happens to Austin Street, lingering questions will remain. Perhaps the most central: What kind of city are we? Proponents argue that high density projects (or “compact” as a housing advocate called it last night) will bring much needed housing relief to our city and use Cambridge, Brookline, and Somerville as models we should follow. But ask people why they move to Newton. I can’t imagine they will say “Because we’re are hoping it becomes more like those cities.” I would imagine it is exactly the opposite: people move here and stay here precisely because we are not like Cambridge, Brookline, or Somerville. And high density housing has not made Cambridge, Brookline, or Somerville more accessible or affordable. In fact, Brookline, for example, is as expensive as it ever was with high rents and property values making it only slightly more socio- and economically diverse now than it was in the 1980’s (e.g. 1% increase in African-American residents).
There are all manner of planners, designers, developers, committees claiming to know what is best for Newton. Why are residents so skeptical of these claims? I am reminded of a quote that sums up pretty nicely (and from an urban designer to boot!) where the skepticism comes from: “Because they see a lot of bad stuff” (http://formbasedcodes.org/definition).
The question of development and housing is not either/or – that is “High density or nothing.” But the considerations of each village and the residents and businesses of each village must still have their own particulars attended to by elected officials who should be representing the people who vote for them.
I agree.
Lynne LeBlanc, if you are running for alderman, you should learn something about the special permit process. The Board of Aldermen, in its capacity as a Special Permit Grnnting Authority, is acting as a quasi-judicial body which is supposed to exercise its judgment in a fair, unbiased and impartial manner, and not directly representing the people who vote for us. Our job is to determine whether the project meets the special permit criteria, and, if so, to impose conditions that will mitigate the impact of the project.
I know that is a hard concept to wrap one’s head around, but it is the law.
I never realized just how contentious this issue was until I was part of a team collecting signatures at Sunday’s Newton Democratic caucus to start a volunteer base for Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaign. Another person collecting signatures was sporting a “Build Austin Street” button and this made one prospective signer livid when he saw it. He absolutely refused to sign anything for Bernie even though he fully supports his candidacy. I can’t see what Austin Street has to do with Bernie or any other candidate, but that’s what happened. Then to make it even more bizarre, a pro Austin Street supporter got a little testy when I told him I didn’t want to put on the pro button she handed me. But since she was for Hillary, it didn’t really matter.
My only personal qualm with Austin Street is the argument that projects like this are somehow a solution to keeping lot of seniors in Newton. I’m in the category of seniors that want to stay in their homes;’ but every so often the thought crosses my mind that the real smart thing would be to move to something smaller like Austin Street. The problem is that even though we have a lot of equity in this house, the cost effectiveness of downsizing to something new in Newton like the envisioned Austin Street project is often more apparent than real. And by the time I have to move, it might be difficult for me to get on the 59 bus or traverse those long, steep stairs from Washington Street down to the Newtonville train tracks.
The longer I’m here, the more impressed I become with the type of senior housing provided by the Golda Meir House. We need more of this kind of housing if we want more seniors to stay in Newton and help free up larger houses like mine for new comers with kids. I have several friends that have moved to Golda Meier and they all love it. This is a much more effective option for seniors who want to stay in Newton when their health and mobility starts going down hill.
@Ted, you’ve made this observation before, and i think it is a critical point.
For what it’s worth though, I sense that the message needs to be sent just as clearly to your existing board colleagues, as i think some don’t buy into that philosophy. Perhaps the law office ought to provide clear guidance on that point?
So generous of you to give that pointer, Ted; I know there will be lots to learn as Alder/City Councilor. I am looking forward to that.
Dan Fahey says:
Delivering that message can get you fired as chairman of the Land Use Committee. But if I had it to do all over again, I wouldn’t change a thing. 😉
I guess my point,Ted, is that this a message that ought to be coming from the law office, certainly as it educates new aldermen, but also as reminders to those that are in already in place.
@ Greg, Dan, and Gail said.
Lynne – I moved here because I couldn’t afford either Brookline or Cambridge.
Dan, every term, the Planning Department, the Clerk’s Office and the Law Department conduct orientation joint sessions for all of the aldermen, which includes a comprehensive tutorial on the special permit granting authority and the obligations of the aldermen.
@Ted, thanks for the explanation.
People move to Newton for a lot of reasons – don’t assume that what attracted you is what attracted your neighbor. For example, I moved for the location (convenient for my commute on 128 at that time), being on the Green Line, and being able to walk to shops and a playground in the village center.
@Mgwa. I was born here. I really didn’t have a choice in the matter.
Lynne LeBlanc wrote:
To suggest that a city-initiated development like Austin Street project or the Comprehensive Plan which supports it aim to turn Newton into Cambridge or Somerville is, I think, a distortion.
Jess Barton similarly misses the point in her thoughts on #3 Like mgwa, my wife and I chose our Newton neighborhood for many of those same reasons (transit, village center) which are in fact all about (an appropriate amount of) density in village centers.
@ Dan, Greg and Gail
I find it very odd and highly disappointing that you find more reason to question a blog commenter than dealing with the substance of the Mayor’s actions.
The fact is that the Mayor has continually promised one course of action, and the resulting reality is different. I highlighted MULTIPLE examples of that above. If you can provide a different explanation than dishonesty, I’m all ears.
Just focusing on one element that I highlighted above.
The Mayor said he chose a developer, not a project, and that no project was on the table. Several months later, the developer unveils the “new” project: same units, same size, same purchase price– pretty much the same project. That was a clean slate? Its just coincidence that the “new” project looked the same as the old one?
How do you explain that?
While I disagree with THM on a number of things, I respect the fact that he calls ’em as he sees ’em. It seems plain as day that the Mayor hasn’t been fully honest, and while Ted chose less controversial words, he’s on record that he agrees.
I’d love to hear your specific responses to the “chose a developer. not a project” statement from the Mayor given that the initial proposed project afterwards ended up being pretty much the same thing.
Paul – It’s your obsessive beating one drum that sounds oddly familiar.
@Paul: Under the rules of this blog, you are not required to use your real name,
But the terrific thing is that the rest of us are not required to respond.
Unlike the vast majority of anonymous regulars here, you have consistently declined to provide any information about yourself, even while demanding a lot from everyone else. When asked you wouldn’t say which village you live in, what you do, whether you work in Newton or elsewhere, if you have kids in the schools, if you own a home, etc. Heck we don’t even know if you’re a man or a women.
Your (as Jane said so well) “obsessive beating of one drum” and refusal to disclose anything about yourself, makes your motivation here very suspicious. So I’m exercising my right to ignore your questions to me unless or until you choose to provide some context.
Have a great evening!
Obviously I agree with Paul about the Mayor saying one thing and doing another, since I said it above. It’s a fact. I’ve quoted him. He’s quoted him. If the Mayor changed his mind about choosing the first plan, or anything else he publicly stated, as has been suggested, then he should have said so and given reasons why. Anyone can talk around in circles, but these are facts in evidence.
I too walk by the lot almost daily. I also park there on occasion. It is ugly. A development is going to go there. I just want it to live up to the promises made. I’m glad the BOA are asking questions and seeking answers to make sure we get the best project we can. I’ve had some questions satisfactorily answerred by the developer’s representative.
I agree with everything Bob Burke said!!! Except I had a choice. I moved here because my son, who went to college up here and never left, convinced me I should downsize here because he thought I would love it as much as he does, for many different reasons. It’s more urban than the suburbs and not as urban as Boston. It’s close to everywhere.
I’ve made great friends from different backgrounds with varied interests. I love the volunteer opportunities, the educational series, the cultural programs, writer’s groups, the theater, the symphony, the museums all over, the Autobahn, Mt Auburn Cemetary, and on and on.
At first I thought it was too urban for me but I was living in a suburb, in a big house with a huge yard. After almost 10 years, I love my 1500 sq ft and wonder why I ever thought I needed more room, I love walking to town particularly when the school kids are walking home. I love not having a huge yard but still have grass and tend my flowers. I will never give up my car because I go too many places in all directions. I love the diversity and hope anyone who wants to live here for whatever reason can find something that suits them. It may even be someplace they never dreamed of.
I don’t like it when groups of people think they know what seniors or other groups want. Ask any senior, mother, father, child, teacher, lawyer, doctor, professor and you’ll hear a lot of different reasons. Which is another thing I like about living in Newton.
The municipal parking lots are supposed to be “landscaped” and “maintained”? I can’t believe that this information has been hiding in plain sight all along. Excellent detective work. Is there a single parking lot in the city that meets these criteria? Certainly not the ones on my block. And any suggestions about improving them that don’t involve developers have been treated as hopelessly naive.
@Amanda – perhaps the Library parking lot. I’d have to count trees vs spaces. For a long time the trees were in terrible shape; when we did a Newton Citizen Pruners session there some years ago, there were a lot of trees too far gone to work on. But a couple of years ago, new trees were planted in the empty spots at least. In 10 or 15 years or so the elms particularly should provide a very nice canopy, and shade to park under in the summer.
Bingo.
Paul:
Wait. Were you honestly thinking that Dinosaur Capital was going to present an entirely NEW project? That wouldn’t have made any sense either, no? And since in the end they increased parking, decreased density, and lowered height and commercial space, they DIDN’T come back with the same project in the end. Look, you may hate the revised proposal (and my views on it are lukewarm and well known) but let’s at least acknowledge that they at least made some changes. And some of them are big ones, especially with the parking. That was THE loudest issue at the meetings. Height and density being other biggies. Now I’m SURE you don’t think they went far enough, and these are window dressing. But let’s at least acknowledge that the project has made some attempts at improving based on feedback.
As for the fact that you wanted MORE community feedback, well I went back and counted and I think we’ve had over a dozen meetings on this, most in the last 2 years. Plus, we had a great committee filled with some really amazing folks vet the various applications. And Dinosour came out tied for first place. And I respect a lot of folks on that committee.
I think the Mayor has mismanaged this, but I also think you don’t really care about the process, you just want nothing to be done with the lot. And I wonder why. My recollection is that you said at one point that you live on Austin Street. Is that correct? I went back and read a bunch of the older threads and couldn’t find it, but perhaps I am thinking of Peter, instead of Paul, who also went by one name, never gave personal details, and sparred with Greg.
At this point, I agree with Greg and others that I’d appreciate the bare details of your story. Folks here know I have kids at Cabot, that I live near enough the high school to be annoyed at the traffic and the construction, that I know something about development, and that I obviously live in Newtonville. Surely you can give a few details.
I think otherwise I’m going to treat you like a blog troll, and it is always best not to feed the blog trolls with more posts about their topics. That would be a shame since I like this place with more participants, even you.
And I’d appreciate if both you and Greg took your personal sniping offline. Go have a beer and talk it out. Bond over Game of Thrones or some TV show.
Well said, fignewtonville.
Thanks Dan. I’m glad you are posting here again btw. I’ve always liked your posts.
I appreciate your comments.
I’ve been traveling a huge amount over the last year, and only now back for a reasonable period.
@Fig
Re: proposal– I agree the final proposal looks different than the original, the differences being as you suggested. It was the initial proposal after ASP was selected, that was pretty much the same as the proposal in the bidding process. Given that it was supposed to be a “blank slate” that doesn’t make sense. I wouldn’t expect it to be completely new, but I also wouldn’t have expected the first community meetings to be based on the same proposal as the bid process when the Mayor promised a clean slate.
Re: Community feedback. I’ve said this a number of times, in this thread. I didn’t say I wanted more community feedback. I said that the Mayor promised it, and didn’t follow through on his word. Again.
Re: my preferences. I’ve said multiple times that I would prefer that we don’t add density to any part of the city, but I understand the other side’s perspective and would be fine with a compromise solution that was a building not so out of size/character with the village– 3 stories, 30-40 units. I’ve also said that the developer is making an outsize profit given the below market rate land acquisition and so we should expect more affordable housing units than would be typically expected. You’re also mixing me up with some other poster, I’ve never stated anything about my location.
PS You got a fair amount wrong about my views all in your one post– hope I’ve clarified.
@Fig @Greg
I’ve tried to make the point that folks here seem too interested in labels, but that’s fallen on deaf ears. I don’t understand how knowing that I’ve owned a home for 10 years, chose to live in Newton with no ties to the city, have kids in the school system, live in Newton Center– those are my actual facts, Greg– makes any difference when pointing out facts on what the Mayor promised, and how that differs from what then happened. Repeatedly. I guess you could argue that I’m more focused on the overpopulation in our schools, and how its problematic that we’re looking to add more school age children into our system when we don’t have facilities that can handle the other ones here. I’d argue that our home values are heavily linked to the reputation of our school system, and persistent overcrowding harms all of us, not just the parents and kids. But otherwise, I don’t see how it makes a difference.
Paul – It’s your preoccupation with the mayor. It’s the voice in your postings that’s sounds very familiar. It’s the sense that you have an agenda other than the issues you post about. A pretty small number people fit the bill, and one of them who does posts under his own name – to his credit.
Jane, you’ve made your point. If Paul has so little credibility, why do you feel it necessary to bring so much attention to his posts?
Jane, Adam, and now Greg, has repeatedly said on every recent thread that no one has to use their real name. Even progressing to either let it go, stop responding or start a blog that requires real names.
Now Paul has posted exactly what you and others have asked him to and you are still “beating your one drum.” It was only this year that you added your last name.
Sorry Adam. Cross posting.
@Jane,
LOL. Paranoia is an amazing thing. I’m not politically involved in Newton in any way, you’ve never heard my voice in any forum other than V14, there’s no other agenda.
I’m not preoccupied with the Mayor. I don’t think that I’ve ever written a post about him on any topic except this Austin St. process. I’ve voted for the guy.
For me, this isn’t about him. He’s doing what many political careerists do– he’s looking to make a mark, have a few legacy accomplishments for his future campaigns, pay back campaign supporters through crony capitalism, its happened may times before and will happen many times again. C’est la vie.
I’m highly disappointed with us. That we let our civic leaders get away with this stuff. That we cheer “our side” no matter what- even if the facts are clear that our side has wronged, we keep cheering for our guy. We’re one of the most educated cities in the world. And we expect so little. Here’s the thing with the Mayor “chose the developer, not the project.” The dishonesty was so transparent. And he KNEW that it was transparent. He’s a smart guy, he realizes what he’s said. But he knows the political reality– it just didn’t matter. He knows that some people support him, some people don’t; some people support Austin St., some people don’t, and no one is going to change their minds on him or the project because he ran a highly flawed process. There’s no value no being fully above board and transparent, because none of us are willing to hold our leaders accountable for better government.
Our school system is steadily declining on a relative basis, and we just can’t seem to get ahead of it. We’re building new schools and some will be at capacity Day 1, leaving no room for enrollment under-projections. The research literature overwhelmingly supports full day kindergarten, we’re one of the few school systems in the State that doesn’t have it, and we’ve made no progress on the topic for years. Our infrastructure in the City is behind the times. I could go on and on. We’re in our own way, and it starts with not expecting enough from our leaders, being so partisan in our views that clear facts can’t be acknowledged, and not willing to compromise. For better or for worse, I’m one of the only people on this blog that support a compromise solution for Austin St. One that acknowledges concerns over affordable housing, even if I personally think its wrong-headed to pursue it in Newton, but also doesn’t create a building that would be the largest in the village center– by far. There was a clear compromise option, but both sides were so partisan on the issue that it wasn’t an option on the table.
That’s my voice, Jane. We’re failing ourselves.
Marti – For years, our little local blogophere has been concerned about the people who are just too nasty, who attack character as opposed to discussing issues. Several AB’s have actually been well known people in the community who post under an anonymous name so they can settle old scores, so to speak. It’s simply not an okay thing to do and always ends badly for the blogger. That’s all I’m going to say about that. For now.
I posted anonymously for years because I was the target of 5 incidents that required police intervention during and following the NNHS referendum, but everyone has always known who I am. It was a most unusual set of circumstances that’s thankfully in my past. However, at that time, my character and my good name was smeared on Tab blog by AB’s, so it’s an issue that’s of concern to me, just as developments, tear-downs, leaf blowers, etc. are a concern to other people.
I hope you understand where I’m coming from.
@Paul – Nicely said and I hope you have allayed the fears of the anony’phobics amongst us.
I’d disagree about
I think there’s plenty of us both in general and here on the blogs.
Jerry, I agree with your last comment that there are multiple people who want something done yet more in scale with the village while meeting the balanced needs of the village and the city.
Paul, last week Greg offered a poll on this topic. He only offered “yes” or “no” options regarding this current proposal. The “no” votes were about 40% (around 60 votes) of the total as I recall. Tom Sheff suggested an expanded response option that would identify the size of the segment of the responders wanting something done but not this specific proposal. Greg was not interested in capturing that information. I would be interested in knowing how many of the 60 people agree with you, Jerry, me and I suspect others.
Jerry, nicely said.
Paul, Patrick, etc. I have certainly been a vocal proponent for compromise and commented that the questions on the poll could have been more nuanced but it was just a poll on a blog so it was just for fun more than anything. I’ve found more satisfying ways to get answers to my questions like asking someone who knows them.
The thing is that what Paul said is mostly true about this relatively new unconditional support for a politician, regardless of party affiliation or lack of one. I supported Barack Obama and am happy with most of what he has accomplished. But when I try to mention anything his administration might have do better, I get vitriol in return. Makes no sense. The same goes with Mayor Warren. I voted for him too and support a lot he has done but if I voice my concern or have a criticism of something his administration has said or done, I’m chastised. Again, makes no sense. Politicians at any level need oversight and supporters shouldn’t just turn a blind eye.
Jane, I have no problem understanding why you wanted to just use your first name. But you never know what is going on in another’s life. Saying that the people you don’t agree with are being anonymous because they just want to deceive you isn’t a good idea. Holding a politician accountable is our job; it’s not being nasty.
There are a lot of posters using their real names that are truly nasty than anonymous ones trying to point out problems with something about the Mayor.