UPDATE: Here is the HUD Conciliation Document
The Supporters of Engine 6, together with the Disability Law Center, Inc. and the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston have reached agreement with Newton Mayor Setti Warren on a plan to create permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless individuals in Newton, according to this statement on Wicked Local Newton
HUD is very serious about every community stepping up in this process.
Congratulations to the Supporters of Engine 6, the Disability Law Center, and the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston for achieving a great result for chronically homeless persons with disabilities and for fair and affordable housing in Newton. They have performed an invaluable service to our community. And kudos to the Mayor for settling these claims against the City for violating the fair housing laws. Ever since the Engine 6 project was derailed, the climate in this city around residential development including affordable housing, homelessness and fair housing has become toxic. I sincerely hope and believe that this conciliation agreement could represent a turning point, where Newton turns to a discussion about how to create affordable housing opportunities for the chronically homeless, not whether we should.
What seems missing from this story is the issue of homeless folks with criminal records. My recollection was that was part of what derailed the Engine 6 proposal of 2 years ago.
While I’m happy to see an agreement, I don’t see that Engine 6 caused the problem or made the conversation toxic. It did give voice to a group of people who’d like to maintain economic diversity in the city together.
Whenever issues of diversity are discussed publicly, it’s difficult. Whether it’s about redistricting or building rental or affordable housing, we’re often caught by surprise that a friend or neighbor isn’t on the same page, and that applies to both sides of an issue. It’s all part of working together through the tough stuff and moving forward. It’s a good thing.
what jane said
I’m with THM on this one. It is because of Engine 6 and the other groups proceeding with a fair housing decision from HUD and the evidence presented in the lawsuits that the procedures were scrutinized. I too am hopeful that a turning point is coming.
I do agree with Jane about being “caught by surprise that a friend or neighbor isn’t on the same page.” It happened to me today when a friend referred to the St Philip Neri project as both “tragic and traumatic.”
I have been involved with fair housing and affordable housing issues for most of my adult life, and am well aware of how difficult community conversations about a particular project or proposal can be. In the past few years right here in Newton, the conversation has become increasingly coarse, and there has been a dearth of leadership, from the Mayor, from the Board of Aldermen, and from other community leaders. After refusing to fund the Engine 6 project, the Mayor promised a series of forums about housing issues. I am still waiting.
To me, this agreement represents the end of the debate over whether we should provide housing for the homeless, and begins a no less important, even harder conversation about where and how we can create those housing opportunities. I feel equal parts trepidation and hopefulness at this point. But I think we owe a deep debt to the Supporters of Engine 6, the Disability Law Center and the Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston for laying a foundation upon which we can build.
Jane Frantz wrote “Whenever issues of diversity are discussed publicly …
we’re often caught by surprise that a friend or neighbor isn’t on the same page, and that applies to both sides of an issue. It’s all part of working together through the tough stuff and moving forward.” A diverse community means that there will be a diversity of opinions, so one ought not be surprised that a neighbor has a different opinion. The surprise to me is the lack of respect that folks on opposite sides of an issue tend to display to one another, including on this blog.
from wickedlocal article linked above ‘“As affordable housing advocates, we know that the majority of Newton residents desire to sustain its tradition as a community that embraces economic and other diversity in its population,” said Fran Godine, of Engine 6.’ This also surprises me. If there hasn’t been a vote of some kind (not that that’s a perfect way to measure), then how does one know how a majority of Newton residents think? One group pushing their agenda is not working together as a city – it’s actually more like working against the residents who were opposed to Engine 6.
The conversation is merely out in the open, not any more or less “coarse” than before, and claiming full credit and righteousness merely alienates the larger population. A respectful dialogue that enables the city to evaluate each development independently and seek change to improve upon plans is far more important as we move ahead. Ald. Laredo deserves a lot of credit for lowering the temperature of this conversation with his masterful chairing of the June 2 and 9th hearings.
Marti – What happened to young children at the hands of pedophile priests over 10 years ago was “tragic and traumatic”. The ensuing events resulted in the selling off Catholic churches and properties throughout the metro-Boston area. Proponents and opponents can and should make a case based on reasoned and reasonable issues regarding SPN, but should stay far away from hyperbolic language such as “tragic and traumatic’.
I agree with Rena. Having this conversation out in the open has made many if not most people more careful in the choice of words when discussing sensitive issues.
Folks, don’t forget the City is having a housing open house this Sunday . Might be worth a visit to see if any of these topics are on the table
Rena Loring, that is an expanded version of “being surprised by a friend” to incorporate diversity into differing opinions among friends. We are not talking liberals and conservatives, Catholics and Protestants, baby boomers and millennials who probably have differing opinions about some things and calling that diversity.
When friends have always supported housing for anyone who wants to live in Newton by being actively welcoming and supportive to a diverse population (meaning all of the diversities that are included the fair housing laws) but then equates renters living near them to a tragic and traumatic situation, it is surprising.
Voting on questions such as affordable housing and wanting diversity would not be a good way to have an accurate idea of whether or not a majority of Newtonites support affordable housing because only a small percentage of our residents vote and the ones who did would probably represent the most extreme views. I don’t know what these groups are basing their conclusions on so I can’t defend their statement but I am hopeful they are correct.
It seems that some people are having trouble understanding that laws are laws and must be enforced, whether they be Fair Housing Laws or the laws governing how special permits are granted, Dan. If you are reading this blog, then you know how to find out about those laws. Google them or just check out the Newton, MA website. These are not philosophies or agendas or opinions, these are laws. The reasons used to oppose Engine 6 broke parts of the law.
And once again I agree completely with THM. Uncanny!!
And with almost all of what Jane just said.
And Chris, I don’t know why I missed that so thank you for posting it here. After I see Elmo and Cookie Monster, I’ll try to be there.
What Marti said about being surprised.
Thanks for the reminder, Chris Steele. It would be nice to see a lot of folks, other than housing advocates, who want to participate in this important conversation. I hope to see you there.
(a) define “diversity” as it is being used here.
(b) why should diversity be legally mandated? shouldn’t it simply be not illegally impeded in a discriminatory way?
(c) what benefit are people gaining by forcing this diversity?
(d) why isn’t Newton already considered diverse? I look around the city and see much more diversity than most other smaller cities and towns, leaving out places like Boston for the moment.
(e) why is it that just because someone was able to force through a law that it is assumed to be correct? most people only think it’s correct if it reflects their thinking.
No-one will answer any of these, of course.
@Marti: You stated: “The reasons used to oppose Engine 6 broke parts of the law.” Please read the actual HUD Conciliation Agreement, especially Parts 1 and 3 under General Provisions. You may wish to change your statement.
If someone will help me to embed the link to the document, I will do so.
UPDATE: Thanks to Sallee Lipshutz for digging up a copy of the HUD Conciliation Document
Thanks Greg.
Ok Sallee, I’ve read every word. I have no desire to change my statement.
“The reasons used to oppose Engine 6 broke parts of the law.” It’s quite a mild statement at that.
Hi Marti, just read your response to my post and I thank you for sharing your thoughts. You said
“Voting on questions such as affordable housing and wanting diversity would not be a good way to have an accurate idea of whether or not a majority of Newtonites support affordable housing because only a small percentage of our residents vote and the ones who did would probably represent the most extreme views.“
Is this really what you meant to say? This implies that voting is not a good way to assess the views of the majority of Newton residents, period. If you mean that voting on questions re: affordable housing or diversity, however you define it, is somehow different than say overrides, elected officials, etc., can you please explain why? In my mind, voting on any of these matters is imperfect, but equally so.
My reading of the agreement is that no laws were broken. I also believe that voting is the only way to measure community desires. Otherwise we have dictators. Simple as that
Sallee, the more accurate way to read this settlement is that there was neither an admission nor a finding of a violation, which is a common provision of almost every settlement of litigation. That is not the same as saying there was no violation, only that the parties entered into a voluntary agreement to resolve the claims against the city in exchange for the “Relief in the Public Interest” specified in the settlement. And, make no mistake about it, the claimants in this case received virtually all of the relief they requested from this conciliation agreement.
You should also note the enforcement provisions in this agreement. If the city fails to live up to its agreement to create 9-12 units of affordable housing for chronically homeless person within the time allowed, as well as the other requirements of the agreement, the Department of Justice can bring an enforcement action against the city under the Fair Housing Act. The sanctions can be severe, including the loss of federal Community Development Block Grant funding, as Westchester County found out.
Sallee, since you do not want “dictators”, you must realize that the impetus for this action by engine 6 et al was primarily precipitated by the fact that our Mayor stopped the public comment period (as dictated by HUD) before it was rightfully over. That, to me, is rather dictatorial. By doing so, he opened this city up to major sanctions, as THM mentioned above – the loss of Community Development Block Grant funding would have been catastophic (and still looms in the future if Newton doesn’t comply with the conditions of the agreement). This City and our Mayor lucked out with the conciliatory agreement that was reached but it still will cost us all money as we are forced to do what we should have done anyway – make Newton compliant with Fair Housing regulation.
Well said, NativeNewtonian. I would add only that the public does not get to vote on whether to protect other people’s civil rights.
True but it’s not that simple since they elect legislators who do. I don’t mean to derail the discussion but Ted’s statement just struck me as sad in light of the news out of North Carolina and Michigan. I’m drawing no parallel whatsoever. Just sighing publicly.
Sallee, I implied no such thing.
Ironically, Gail, you just proved my point. When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down slavery laws in the 1780s, or when the SCOTUS struck down laws against inter-racial marriage exactly 48 years ago today, a majority of Americans would have voted against both decisions. Unjust laws, whether they are adopted by legislators or a plebiscite, cannot trump civil rights. Depending on how the SCOTUS rules on same-sex marriage, those laws in Michigan and North Carolina may well be struck down as violating the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.
The HUD conciliation agreement enshrines the right of chronically homeless persons with disabilities not to be discriminated against in housing in Newton. And, this time around, if the city fails to create such housing because the neighbors think it belongs in Waltham instead of their own village, HUD could take away Newton’s share of federal housing funds and give it to Waltham.
Does anyone know where I can find information about Mayor Warren’s progress as mandated by the HUD Conciliation Agreement? Thank you in advance!